Does the Eastern Orthodox Church have guidelines on which language to recite the Jesus Prayer in? Does it matter in which language the Jesus Prayer is recited, in order to bring about the Prayer of the Heart? I can find some reasons for using one's mother tongue, but also a few for using for example Greek, as on Mount Athos.

If different sub-groups of Orthodoxy have different schools of thought, I'd like an overview of the different perspectives.

In contrast with Islam, the language and its intrinsic power does not seem to play a central role in Christianity, but I was somehow expecting that it would in Hesychasm.

The general guideline of the Orthodox Church has always been to allow believers to worship, read and pray in the language which they understand.

In his Ecclesiastical History, Theodoret describes how, in the 4th century, John Chrysostom ministered to the Goths (Scythians) within Greek-speaking Constantinople itself:

  Appointing presbyters and deacons and readers of the divine oracles
  who spoke the Scythian tongue, he assigned a church to them, and by
  their means won many from their error. He used frequently himself to
  visit it and preach there, using an interpreter who was skilled in
  both languages, and he got other good speakers to do the same. This
  was his constant practice in the city, and many of those who had been
  deceived he rescued by pointing out to them the truth of the apostolic
  preaching.

  Book V, Chapter XXX

The existence of the Cyrillic alphabet provides another such example of such support.  The Prologue describes how Cyril and Methodius ministered to the Slavs:

  When the Khazarite king, Kagan, sought preachers of the Christian
  faith from the Emperor Michael, the Emperor commanded that these two
  brothers be found and sent to the Khazars. They converted Kagan to the
  Christian faith and baptised him, together with a great number of his
  nobles and an even greater number of the people. After some time, they
  returned to Constantinople, where they compiled a Slavic alphabet of
  38 letters and began to translate the service books from Greek into
  Slavonic. At the invitation of Prince Rastislav, they went to Moravia,
  where, with great devotion, they spread and confirmed the Faith, made
  more copies of the books, brought them priests and taught the young.

  Lives of Sts. Cyril and Methodius

Today the Orthodox Church comprises four of the five ancient Patriarchates (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem), nine autocephalous Churches (ten if the Orthodox Church in America is counted), and five autonomous Churches (Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Church, pp. 5-6).  These Churches not only support worship in the local language, but also - in the spirit of John Chrysostom - often in the language of any foreigners who happen to be present.  In the Cathedral of St. Luke in Hong Kong, which belongs to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, for example, I have heard English, Cantonese, Greek, Romanian, Russian, and French all used in the same service, depending on who happened to be visiting that particular Sunday.

Although the Jesus Prayer is understood to be mystical by Orthodox believers, it is not "magical".  It is a prayer and not an incantation and, as such, falls entirely within the Orthodox tradition of prayer and worship in one's own language.


Is there such a thing as a 'concordat' today in the Catholic church? Background to question raised:
I have been reading old histories where as a background stage, there were various antipopes (sometimes even 3 competing popes at the same time). The complex relationships they had with civil powers, kings and influence in wars and judicial inquiries and resulting punishments is like a gigantic maze.  The role of church and state becomes very confusing and messy to say the least. At times it seems impossible to figure out who the 'good guys' were amongst all the turmoil and politics among war and collecting of taxes, tithes, etc. which the kings and Pope wrestled with one another. This lead me to having an interest in the Catholic view of church and state.

Current understanding:
Upon realizing that the Catholic church believes in a physical church I have further come to understand that it sees this physical church-state to have three functions. Kingly, Priestly and Prophetic. I was aware of the priesthood and teaching role but a 'literal' kingly role, making the Pope a kind of earthly Monarch, that is having some earthly right to power (pardon me if I'm not using the correct Catholic terms) is new to me. Upon considering this 'earthly' power it started to make sense of church history. First the church had no earthly power. Then after Constantine it obviously did start having a literal earthly power. But then as Kings naturally want to separate church and state, it seems the Pope tried to make agreements with other powers so as it maintain his power in a non warring fashion under the name of a 'concordat', or a treaty between states of literal power, so to speak. However as the idea of separation of church and state, which is the way the world seems to be going since the founding of America which had multiple church denominations trying to find a new life free of religious persecution; I cant see how any state would consider the pope to have enough literal 'kingly power' as to even consider such a thing as a 'concordat'? It would seem ridiculous to even imagine such a thing, otherwise states would need to make legal agreements with every religious leader?

Resulting immediate question:
Are there any current states that still maintain some kind of official recognition of a literal state-like power of the Pope through a concordat?

Concordats in the sense of a "treaty" were prominent in Pope Pius XI's papacy (cf. the Lateran Treaty) and in Pope Pius XII's also (Pope Pius XII was Pope Pius XI's secretary of state). See this list of concordats.

Also, there are some good books on the Catholic Church and State doctrine:

Catholic Church and Christian State: A Series of Essays on the Relation of the Church to the Civil Power vol. 1 & vol. 2 by a cardinal-archivist of the Vatican Archives, Cdl. Joseph Hergenröther
The Temporal Power of the Vicar of Christ by Cdl. Manning
Catholic Principles of Politics by Fr. John A Ryan


What are the Biblical arguments against man having an immortal soul separate from the body? Belief in an immortal soul seems quite common in Christianity although some denominations do not seem to believe in this.

What specific scriptures, and scriptural arguments, are used by those that do not believe in humans having an immortal soul separate from the body?

Update: this is not a duplicate of this other question because this one is specifically asking for support for the opposite viewpoint. Additionally the other question has only answers which support the idea that humans do have a soul. If this has to be scoped to a particular denomination, I choose Jehovah's Witnesses.

I am answering from the perspective of Jehovah's Witnesses.
In the Bible, the word for soul is ne'phesh in Hebrew, and psy'khe in Greek. Their definitions generally convey the concept of "a breathing creature" or "a living being". Many of the scriptures I mention in this answer may not use the word "soul" in their English translations, but will use one of these similar terms such as "life", "person", "creature", or "body". I've denoted these words with the word "soul" in brackets next to them.
Adam wasn't given a soul, he became a soul.

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. - Genesis 2:7 (KJV)
So also it is written, The first man Adam became a living soul. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. - 1 Corinthians 15:45 (ASV)

The soul can die.

... the soul that sinneth, it shall die. - Ezekiel 18:4 (KJV)
He must not enter a place where there is a dead body ["soul"]. He must not make himself unclean, even for his father or mother - Leviticus 21:11 (NIV)
All the days that he separateth himself unto Jehovah he shall not come near to a dead body ["soul"]. - Numbers 6:6 (ASV)
And they smote all the souls that were therein with the edge of the sword, utterly destroying them: there was not any left to breathe: and he burnt Hazor with fire. - Joshua 11:11 (KJV)
Samson said, “Let me ["my soul"] die with the Philistines!” Then he pushed with all his might, and down came the temple on the rulers and all the people in it. Thus he killed many more when he died than while he lived. - Judges 16:30 (NIV)
Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. - Matthew 10:28 (NIV)

Animals are souls, and die the same way.

Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures ["souls"], and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.” - Genesis 1:20 (NASB)
Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures ["souls"] after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so. - Genesis 1:24 (NASB)
For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same. As one dies so dies the other; indeed, they all have the same breath and there is no advantage for man over beast, for all is vanity. - Ecclesiastes 3:19 (NASB)
8 The second angel sounded his trumpet, and something like a huge mountain, all ablaze, was thrown into the sea. A third of the sea turned into blood, 9 a third of the living creatures ["souls"] in the sea died, and a third of the ships were destroyed. - Revelation 8:8-9 (NIV)

There is also a non-biblical argument against the immortality of the soul, and that is that the teachings originated from Socrates and Plato, and was later incorporated by Christian Greek philosophers.
For more information, there is What Is the Soul? and Insight, Vol. 2.


Was the Cold War a "rumor of a war"? So I was trying to sync my iPod to the doomsday clock when I realized that I don't know what is meant by:

  You will hear of wars and reports of wars; see that you are not alarmed, for these things must happen, but it will not yet be the end. (Matthew 24:6 (NABRE))

I do recall that being said as "rumors of war," but that must be in another Bible translation.

So, even if it's not the end, it's still important.  My conception of rumors of war is all wrapped up in George Orwell, but since he didn't write for quite a few years after Matthew perhaps it's not the right notion.

So here's my two parter, which is really a four parter.

What to Jesus and His disciples, what constituted a "Report of war"?  Was it the result of deliberate misinformation campaigns by the Romans?
Was the Cold War a "Rumor of a war"? In reading the signs of the times, was the confluence of wars (i.e. Vietnam) and rumors of war (i.e. Cold War) anything to get worked up about, as a harbinger bringing about the end times?

I don't think that we can say for sure.  I think that this particular verse could apply to just about any time in history.  Rumors of wars could mean any fear of a coming war, including the cold war.

In fact most of the things foretold in Matthew 24 have happened since His time - false messiahs, nation rising against nation, famine, pestilence, earthquakes, Christians being persecuted, killed, and hated for their faith, and so on.

The general consensus among pastors that I have spoken to (and sites that you can find by Googling this verse) is that these signs will increase as we get nearer to the end times.

The fact that there is not a definitive answer to this question, and that it could apply to any time in history is perfectly within Biblical teaching, since Jesus Himself said that no man would know when the coming of these times are.


What is that passage in the Bible where Peter hopes that all will be saved? As a child I was an avid Bible reader, now I don't do it anymore, and there are some time  phrases still lingering in my mind from that period.

Anybody knows what is the passage when Peter hopes and says that everybody will be saved by the mercy of God? I hope I am not erring.

2 Peter 3:9 ... maybe?

  The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.


Man's immortality in the Garden of Eden Possible Duplicate:
  What is the specific meaning of “die” in Genesis 2?

In the book of Genesis, God said they would die if they eat from a certain tree

  Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou
  shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou
  shalt surely die.

From this verse, it seems to me that man was immortal before they ate the fruit. And after they ate the fruit, God said they should not be allowed to eat from the fruit of life

  Genesis 3:22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one
  of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and
  take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever

Did it mean that man would not die or be killed (even by God) if they ate from the tree. Why was God worried they would live forever?
If man was immortal before the fall, the presence of the tree of life had no meaning to them?

First, if we take the tree to symbolize a pledge to Adam the immortality and all that life required, based on continued obedience to all the commands of God, then the tree was a pledge to Adam that so long as he did not eat from the forbidden tree he would have lived forever. This is reasonable.

Second, by sinning Adam lost that immortality, therefore the pledge must necessarily be removed and access to it be forbidden.

The actual death of Adam for sinning was not due to anything inherent in the fruit of the tree physically, but in his internal disobedience. Similarly, eating from the physical tree of life could not have redeemed his soul to life, or his body, as there is no such 'magical fruit' that can forgive the consequences of sin, or kill. Rather when God says 'they must not eat of it', he is referring to the eternal life as a reward which presumes full obedience to all his laws. This Adam must no longer physically do, for the act would betray its symbolic meaning. God physically made it impossible to eat from the tree with flaming swords reminding him of his cursed state, in order to maintain the symbolic messages both trees conveyed. In other words, Adam could not physically eat from the physical tree because he could not internally obey all God's commands in his depraved sinful state and ...live forever in so doing. The tree needed to be replaced by a new tree of life, i.e. Christ dying on a tree, whereby we may eat and live forever.


How can common believers in the Roman Catholic Church be sure that the Church's decisions are correct and not erroneous? There have been some councils, the decisions of which were later reversed by some latter councils. Thus, if your position on a particular matter that was being considered at those councils was too strong, you could easily be excommunicated from the Church as a heretic between those two councils, while you would be just fine after the second one, or the other way around. The most recent example that comes to my mind is probably the incumbent Pope's decision to condone contraceptives.

Here is another example: the council of Hieria in 754 a.d. and the Second Council of Nicaea in 787 a.d., both of which appropriated their titles as Seventh Ecumenical Council. The first council forbade the use of icons, and the second one reversed that decree. I know that one could say here that the Synod of Hieria was not an Ecumenical Council (it was called and chaired by the imperial family and no patriarchs were present, plus, its status is implicit in the Second Council of Nicaea declaring itself to be the actual Seventh Ecumenical Council), however, it doesn't really matter. What matters is that at the time when it took place it was announced as an Ecumenical Council, which means that ordinary folks - at least during the time between those two councils - had to follow the decrees of the council of Hiernia, otherwise, they would definitely fall into the category of heretics according to the decree of that council.

So, the question is: How can common believers in the Roman Catholic Church be sure that the Church's decisions are correct and not erroneous?

Briefly, not all papal decisions are ex cathedra, or spoken from the chair. When he delivers statements in this mode, they are matter of doctrine and dogma, and this has seldom happened in history. Nothing every stated ex cathedra has ever been reneged, and if you read what these things are, you'd realize there is no possibility of reneging them without essentially contradicting Christianity.

Now does this mean that all other teachings are optional? Certainly not. The difference is that the other teachings are knowable without revelation, and can be known through the use of reason or reason augmented by faith. Because scripture is interpreted with the help of tradition (which was abandoned by Protestants, although the Orthodox situation is unclear), the Church is the best qualified to interpret it. The Church is not settled on all matters of Scripture, which is why theologians still debate certain points, but these don't have any larger effect. You have to be careful to distinguish between canon law, unsettled Scriptural matters, and infallible dogma. If you don't distinguish, you become the kind of Protestant who thinks Catholics worship saints, the pope, relics, and so on.

With respect to condom and contraceptive, the pope has not made their use acceptable. This is a wild misinterpretation that the media has propagated (and the media in Anglo-America is notoriously anti-RCC). The Church has always, does, and always will maintain that contraception is evil. The pope, in a rather insignificant explanation that a depraved media fixated on, is merely saying that if someone is a male prostitute now (which is an evil state of affairs), then a move in the right direction may involve condom use as part of an incremental shift from a greater evil to a lesser evil. By using condoms, he is reducing other evils (the act and everything else remains just as depraved) such as the rate of HIV transmission (assuming effectiveness). He's not saying it's okay. In fact, if one is a male prostitute, one should stop being one immediately. The pope is merely saying that in such limited cases, a condom can be seen as a step in the right direction. Not that it's a very big move, or a noble move, or one to write home about. He's giving a theoretical account of it. But in reality, his position is no change at all. Homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and are not made less evil themselves through condom use. Condom use may merely reduce an evil side effect of disease transmission.

So be very careful about what the Church is really saying. You make the same mistake with the aforementioned councils. Those who engage in attacks on the papacy are usually unwilling to really learn about the Catholic Church in depth, and prefer to believe a rather erroneous account of it. There are over 40,000 Protestant denominations because every Tom, Dick, and Harry, plus Joe the Plumber decide, with no education in these matters, what Scripture means for them. Not what it really means, but what they want to read into it.


Blood transfusions and Christianity? Inspired by this question, if we choose to allow a doctor to heal us, how far is too far?

In Lev 17:13-14:

  13 “‘Any Israelite or any foreigner residing among you who hunts any
  animal or bird that may be eaten must drain out the blood and cover it
  with earth, 14 because the life of every creature is its blood. That
  is why I have said to the Israelites, “You must not eat the blood of
  any creature, because the life of every creature is its blood; anyone
  who eats it must be cut off.”

Some groups have gone far enough to say that they won't take blood transfusions or even transplants. Does the preservation of life supersede this verse?

And, although a bit Sci-Fi, does the above verse conflict with the idea of artificial blood?

I think it's fine, but I've been wrong about stuff before.

In Mark 3:1-6, Jesus heals a crippled man's hand on the sabbath:

  Jesus went into the synagogue again and noticed a man with a deformed hand. 2 Since it was the Sabbath, Jesus’ enemies watched him closely. If he healed the man’s hand, they planned to accuse him of working on the Sabbath.
   3 Jesus said to the man with the deformed hand, “Come and stand in front of everyone.” 4 Then he turned to his critics and asked, “Does the law permit good deeds on the Sabbath, or is it a day for doing evil? Is this a day to save life or to destroy it?” But they wouldn’t answer him.

  5 He looked around at them angrily and was deeply saddened by their hard hearts. Then he said to the man, “Hold out your hand.” So the man held out his hand, and it was restored! 6 At once the Pharisees went away and met with the supporters of Herod to plot how to kill Jesus.

I believe this sets a precedent that law wasn't created to destroy life but to give it.


If Hell does not exist would God have sent Jesus to die? There have been several comments on this site which tend to deny the existence of Hell.

But Jesus tells me that the lake of fire is the place of Eternal punishment that God created for Satan and the rebellious Angels, and that the unsaved will also be cast into it.

Matthew 25:41  KJV

  Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Revelation 20:12 through 15

  12  And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

  13  And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

  14  And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

  15  And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

And Jesus himself spoke of Hell 15 times in the Gospels and one time in the Revelation.

But by far there is one question that haunts me the most, and that is that if there was not the most horrendous of all punishments awaiting the unsaved, why would God send Jesus to be tortured and die on the Cross?

You say it is because of his great love for us, but that doesn't pass the smell test; in that if he loves us that much why would he love his own son less.

To take him from Heaven and make him go through what he went through on Earth has to be a lot worse than us just dieing.

Even beyond that unless he was saving mankind from a fate worse than his torture and death on the cross, why would Jesus voluntarily go through it?

It depends on how you interpret the word "perish" in John 3:16.

  For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that
  whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
  (John 3:16, NIV)

Physical death: To say that the word 'perish' here means physical death would mean that the moment we believe in Jesus Christ, we will become immortal and we will never die; which is obviously false. One might also interpret this as the resurrection at the last day, which would mean that non-believers will never be raised again, they will remain in the dust forever, which is again in contradiction to Revelation 20:5, which has resurrection of the unjust after the Millennium.

"Hell/Lake of fire/ Second death:" We will go to Hell after we die if we do not accept the salvation offered by Jesus Christ. Revelation 20(NIV) has something to say about this.

  [4-6] I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given
  authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded
  because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God.
  They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received
  its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and
  reigned with Christ a thousand years. (The rest of the dead did not
  come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first
  resurrection. Blessed and holy are those who share in the first
  resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will
  be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand
  years.

  [11-15] Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it.
  The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no
  place for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before
  the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is
  the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done
  as recorded in the books. 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. Then death and
  Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the
  second death. Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of
  life was thrown into the lake of fire.

I was born and brought up in the Assembly of God Church. Most of the preachers always interpret John 3:16 as,

  Those who believe in Jesus will not go to Hell. After the fall of Adam and Eve, everyone is destined to go to Hell because we no
  longer belonged to God and we are now children of Satan. When God saw
  that all men are going to Hell, He could no longer stay where He was. God then came down from Heaven to earth, to pay the death penalty of sins for
  us, so that we may escape the fire of Hell by accepting Jesus Christ as our savior.

No wonder why the Apostles' Creed states  "Jesus descended into hell".


Does the Bible talk about denominations? Is there any talk of differing religious denominations (of Christianity) in the Bible?

Specific references to passages would be quite useful.

I think the situation in Corinth is comparable to there being different denominations.

  1 Corinthians 1:10-13 (ESV)
   10 I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. 11 For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. 12 What I mean is that each one of you says, "I follow Paul," or "I follow Apollos," or "I follow Cephas," or "I follow Christ." 13  Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

This passage also quite clearly shows what Paul thinks of the situation. He talks more in-depth about this in chapters 3 and 12.


What is the Biblical Basis for differences in the Dispensational and Non-dispensational understanding of the 70th week in the Book of Daniel? I've heard at least two different interpretations from Baptists of:

  And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

  Daniel 9:27 - KJV

referring to one of these:

Non-dispensational view:

The period of the 1st Jewish war (approx 66 to 73AD), when the sacrifices were stopped mid way and the temple was destroyed in 70AD.
Dispensational view:

The 70th week represents the time of Jacob's trouble and when the anti-christ comes and makes a peace covenant with the Jews, but breaks it half way through.

What is the scriptural basis for these interpretations?

There isn't really a single "Baptist view" or even just two or three Baptist views which are in any way distinctive from the views of other major Christian groups/denominations. The following I summarise from Edward J Young's commentary.

There are two broad interpretations - Non-Messianic Interpretations (NMI), and Traditional Messianic Interpretations (TMI).

NMIs mostly tend to focus on Antiochus Epiphanes as the subject of the prophecy: such a focus goes back at least as far as Julius Hilarianus towards the close of the 4th century. An NMI position is adopted by M. Stuart (1850), J.D. Prince (1899), S.R. Driver (1922), J.A. Montgomery (1927)(International Critical Commentary) (which E.J. Young says is very worthy for its philological content). A modern advocate of an NMI is Chris White (2013). "The Septuagint Translation also, by means of additions to the text appears to interpret the passage the same way." (E. J. Young, page 192).

Your question relates to differences between the Dispensational and Non-Dispensational interpretations of the passage. Since both these interpretations are TMIs I will leave the NMIs at that.

Traditional Messianic Interpretations, TMIs, go back at least as far as Augustine. TMIs regard this passage as a prophecy of the first advent of Christ in the flesh, the central point of which is his death, and they relate the prophecy also to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.

Before Augustine, Josephus, the Jewish first century historian, although he did not relate it to Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah, he did relate the prophecy to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans:-

"In the very same manner Daniel also wrote concerning the Roman government, and that our country should be made desolate by them." (Antiquities, book 10, ch 11, [three quarters down] paragraph 7).

The Dispensational View was promoted by Harry Ironside in his book "The Great Parenthesis" (publ. 1943), the parenthesis being between the end of the 69th week and the beginning of the 70th week which has so far lasted 2000 years or so. In addition, before Ironside's work the Scofield Reference Bible (first publ. 1909 and then updated by author and re-publ. 1917) was and is effective in making this interpretation popular. Before the Scofield Reference Bible, the Ultradispensationalist (Bullingerist) Sir Robert Anderson, had produced his work "The Coming Prince" (1894). These works all point to 445 BC as the starting point. Before Robert Anderson, Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg, a staunch defender of the Faith, and author of many commentaries, had written his commentary on Daniel in German (1831) with a following English translation (1848): Hengstenberg also believed the starting point was 445 BC. A further translation of Hengstenberg's book was produced by James Martin and included in "Christology of the Old Testament" (1858). From this stable of interpretation came the idea of a prophetic year of 360 days. Because these interpretations have Jesus of Nazareth as the focal point of the prophecy they are a variant of the TMI.

I will return later to what I believe are major problems with this interpretation.

Then there is an essentially amill minority view which hold all the numbers of weeks to be figurative or symbolic numbers such as two German authors C. F. Kiel, (English translation 1877). and T. Kliefoth "Das Buch Daniel" (1868). I shall not comment on this interpretation because I feel it vanishes away immediately a better interpretation is seen, at least for Protestant amillennialists.

Then there are amillennial interpretations which also have multiple variations but certain common themes apply to many of them. I shall give an amillennial view below.

One of the salient differences between Amill and Dispensational views is the interpretation of the 1 week following the 62 weeks.

In the (non-symbolic) amill view there are essentially two prophecies in the passage:

The first prophecy is of 70 weeks, each week being 7 years. It terminates in the most important event in world history up to the present time, and relates to the Messiah's first advent.

The second prophecy is of 7 weeks, 62 weeks and 1 week. It has a different termination point: its termination point is the most important event yet to happen in world history and relates to the Messiah's second advent.

The second prophecy has the same starting point as the first prophecy, and each week is the same length as the first prophecy, EXCEPT for the final week. This second prophecy has a single theme: if you like, for 7 weeks a tap is switched on, then for 62 weeks the tap is switched off, then for the final week the tap is switched on again. It has the grandest theme imaginable and divides the future of the world history into, spiritually speaking, the most significant periods it is possible to conceive.

Then any amillennialist would be willing to look at the prophecy as having a double meaning: there is a physical, earthly Jerusalem in the Middle East and there is a heavenly Jerusalem, the City of God, the elect people of God, all those predestined to have faith in the Messiah. The word to rebuild relates to both the earthly Jerusalem and the heavenly. The heavenly Jerusalem was made possible by what happened at the end of the 70 weeks; and the heavenly Jerusalem will be finally finished, and the decree to build will reach its culmination, at the end of the 7, 62 , and 1 week, when all the elect people of God will have been gathered into the Kingdom of God, into the heavenly Jerusalem.  The city will have been finally built.

I think it must be admitted that it is one of the greatest of oddities in the interpretation of the Scriptures that the year 458 BC was so easily rejected by commentators and expositors for such a long time despite the fact that 458 BC is exactly 490 years prior to the year of the crucifixion (if we take 33 AD as the year) and amazingly close to 490 years if we take 30 AD as the year of the crucifixion. Surely the decree given 458 BC should have been given the most exact scrutiny, no stone, no pebble should have been left unturned until this possible starting point had been thoroughly credited or discredited. As I read Edward Young's book it is hard to see that this examination was ever done, but rather it seems the date was thrown overboard with indifferent enthusiasm!

An example of such a rejection can be seen in Harry Ironside's comments on chapter 9 at https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/isn/daniel-9.html
"Some insist that the reference is to the commandment given in the seventh chapter of the book of Ezra, which was approximately 457 B.C.; but a careful examination of that decree will make it evident that it did not really have to do with restoring and building the city of Jerusalem at all, but was rather a confirmation of the earlier decree of Cyrus to rebuild the Temple and reinstate the worship of God in Israel. It seems far more likely that the commandment referred to is actually that given in the second chapter of the book of Nehemiah. There we have in very truth a commandment to restore and build Jerusalem, and that commandment was given about 445 B.C."

That summary dismissal of 457 BC is all the comment you get about that year from Harry Ironside. He is not alone. Edward Young, an amillennialist, does worse: his commentary (published 1949) doesn't mention 457 BC (or 458 BC) at all. This is despite the fact that he references the works of 65 different authors, of ALL doctrinal hues, in his bibliography and, in passing, seeks to produce a brief summary of their views. (Despite this rather glaring omission it is still a very useful commentary (in my opinion), even for this passage, not least because of his knowledge of Hebrew.)

This is all very strange: if we simply follow our nose 490 years before the crucifixion we arrive at 458 BC and the decree of Artaxerxes I in Ezra 7:7. Once we have 458 BC I believe the rest of the prophecy begins to fall into place.

To summarise the history: Jerusalem and its temple were destroyed by the Babylonians in 587 BC.

In 539 BC Cyrus conquered Babylon, and very early in his rule, about 539 BC, he decreed that the Jews could return and rebuild in order to restart the Temple worship (Ezra 1:1-11). This decree was re-issued by Darius I, about 522 BC (Ezra 6:1-15). Again the decree was re-issued by Artaxerxes in 458 BC (Ezra 7:7 see also 7:13) leading to the return of Ezra. Some have claimed another decree was given by Artaxerxes at the time of Nehemiah's return, 445 BC.

The Persian Kings are:-

Cyrus the Great 539 - 530 BC (began to reign Persia in 559, but 539 he conquered Babylon, and thus Judaea)

Cambyses II 530 -522

Bardiya/Smerdis/Gaumata 522 ("the imposter")

Darius I (Hystaspes) 522 - 486

Xerxes (Ahasuerus) 486 - 465 (husband of Esther, the 4th king of Daniel 11:2)

Artaxerxes I 464 - 424

Darius II 423 - 404

Artaxerxes II 404 - 358

Artaxerxes III 358 - 338

Artaxerxes IV 338 - 336

Darius III 336 - 330

Artaxerxes V 330 - 329...

And after them Alexander the Great.

Nehemiah returned to Jerusalem and rebuilt the walls in the 20th year of Artaxerxes (Neh 2:1) which was Artaxerxes I, 445 BC. His second journey to Jerusalem was during or not long after the 32nd of Artaxerxes, 433 BC, (Neh 13:6).

One of the most difficult parts of the prophecy has been the meaning of the 7 and 62 weeks. Here I venture the only realistic interpretation: the 62 weeks, 434 years, is the period of prophetic silence between the completion of the Old Testament and the beginning of the ministry of John the Baptist.

Is there any evidence for this? I believe there is.

Elephantine Papyri B19 (Cowley 30) was written 25 November 407 BC and refers back to a previous letter written to "Jehohanan the High Priest" about 410 BC.
If you google search "Baytagoodah" and "elephantine papyri" and go down to letter B19. Go down to page 142 and read the Appeal section.

This letter shows that Jehohanan ("Jonathan" in Nehemiah 12:8, and "Johanan" in Nehemiah 12:22) was High Priest in 410 BC and probably later up to maybe 407 BC.
Yet Nehemiah 12:22 indicates Jaddua (the son of Johanan) was High Priest at the time of composition of chapter 12 of Nehemiah.

Nehemiah 12:22 also mentions the reign of Darius the Persian. This is Darius II who reigned 423 to 404 BC. So clearly Nehemiah was written after 423 BC, but the mention of Jaddua as High Priest means Nehemiah was written after 410 BC when the Elephantine Papyrus says Jehohanan was High Priest.

So sometime after 410 BC Jehohanan died, Jaddua became High Priest in his place, the book of Nehemiah was written, and then Darius II died in 404 BC.

In summary we have a window from 410 BC to 404 BC when the book of Nehemiah was written and added to the Scriptures. This, I believe, is the meaning of the 7 weeks and the 62 weeks.

The 7 weeks is the period from 458 BC to 408 BC when there was still the word of God being proclaimed and when there were still living divinely appointed prophets in Judah.

The 62 weeks is the period starting from the completion of the Old Testament, with the completion of the book of Nehemiah, to the beginning of the ministry of John the Baptist, sometimes referred to as the "Period of Prophetic Silence". It is a distinct period where the beginning and the end of the period are linked together by a common theme.

458 BC of Ezra 7:7 is the anchor of the whole prophecy. 7 weeks from there gives 409 BC, 62 weeks from there gives 26 AD. I suspect that the truly accurate period to the exact year is the 70 weeks up to the crucifixion. (The 7 weeks and 62 weeks do not demand exact years.)

The problem with arguing that the 7 weeks is the period of rebuilding is simply that it is impossible to demonstrate a fulfilment: when can anyone say the year in which a destroyed city was rebuilt? London, Hamburg and Berlin were badly damaged in World War II, but how can anyone say the year in which they were rebuilt? They were reconstructed over many years, and there was never a year when anyone could say they were finished.

"Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven sevens, and threescore and two sevens". Those Bible versions which separate the sixty two sevens from the seven sevens (such as the Revised Standard Version) are following the Masoretic Hebrew Text. The RSV says:-

"Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks.  Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time".

The Hebrew Masoretic text upon which the RSV depends was produced by Jews in about the 10th century AD. It is easy to imagine this was a deliberate corruption: they deliberately wanted to separate the two periods so that they did not add up to 69 weeks or 434 years: they did not want the prophecy to point to Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah. It is also worth remembering that by the time of the Masoretes the Hebrew language was virtually a dead language, even to them.

Edward Young, a scholar in Hebrew, in his commentary on Daniel writes:- "At any rate, this violent separation of the two periods is out of harmony with the context. Furthermore, I question whether it is really in accord with the rules of Hebrew syntax to render "(for the space of ) sixty-two sevens," i.e. as an accusative of duration... It is best, therefore, to understand the text as stating that between the terminus a quo and the appearance of an anointed one, a prince, is a period of 69 sevens which is divided into two periods of unequal length, 7 sevens and 62 sevens."

"The streets shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times", is referring to the rebuilding of the city, but it need not be declaring the date of such rebuilding. It is like a clue for a cryptic crossword. In truth, it is referring to the book in which these things are written about - i.e. the book of Nehemiah - and the prophecy is referring to the date when that book was completed and added to Scripture.

Why must it be referring to the date of writing? It is because the events within the book of Nehemiah had already happened a few decades before the 7th week after 458 BC. It is not necessary to read into Daniel 9:25 that the city will be rebuilt or completed 49 years after 458 BC.

"the people of the prince that shall come" - the Romans, they "shall came" and destroy the city and the temple, which they did in 70 AD.

"He shall confirm the covenant with many for one week" - this is referring to the Covenant of Grace. It is not talking about any new covenant, or any covenant distinct from the covenants already spoken of in Scripture. The covenant will merely be confirmed, not created... it will be no new, separate, distinct, covenant. It is simply saying that many shall be saved in this final week.
This final week is the entire Gospel Age.

Why is it only one week? This is because the Father does not want us to know its true length, "it is not for you to know the times or the seasons which the Father has put into his own power" Acts 1:7. The date of the Day of Judgement was not revealed to Daniel or to any other prophet nor even to the Son himself (Mark 13:32). Of course, in Jesus's divine nature as God Jesus knew, but Mark 13:32 tells us in His human nature as man Jesus did not know. Furthermore the end of the world COULD have come a week/seven years after the crucifixion. The Word of God urges us to be always ready, "for you do not know what hour your Lord doth come" (Matthew 24:42).

In short, if the prophecy of Daniel 9 24-27 had finished with 500 weeks rather than 1 week would you have thought it needful for you personally to be "always ready for you know not the hour"?

Finally, some typically amillenial objections to the Dispensational interpretation:-

The Dispensational view requires a break between the 69th and 70th week of some 2000 years or about 285 weeks of years. This alone must be an entirely fatal flaw to the interpretation.
The idea that some of the prophecy relates to the Antichrist has very little within the text to support it. And besides that it means that none of us need be ready (for we do not know the hour our Lord doth come (Matt 24:44)) until after we have seen the fulfilment of this prophecy, until the Antichrist has come: I mean, we can all sit around and do just as we please, because we know Christ will not return to judge us until after the appearing of the Antichrist. Introducing another event, the coming and reign of the Antichrist, before Christ's return is contrary to Matthew 24:37-51.
It seems unlikely, to say the least, that there would be such a cryptic prophecy about, or would include, such a minor detail as the coming of the Antichrist. This prophecy must surely be about things major.. the general periods of the future when, and how, God shall deal with mankind; the death of Christ; the gospel age; the end of the function and purpose of the temple because Christ, the effective sacrifice for sin, has made the temple obsolete, and this, in turn, means the end of the centrality of the Jewish nation in God's dealings with mankind because no temple means no more God-ordained Jewish religious system, whose sacrifices will have finally permanently ceased "even until the consummation", that is until the Day of Judgement.  From an amillennialist's point of view the Dispensational interpretation turns this prophecy on its head: for the amill, the prediction here is that the Temple finally ceases forever, terminating in the 1st century, and so God's special dealings with the Jews finishes forever, but the Dispensationalist view sees this as a prophecy that the Temple will make a come back and the Jews continuing to have a very special place in God's purposes.
The order in which things are spoken in vv26 and 27 shows that "Messiah shall be cut off" (AD 33) after the 62nd week, which means this falls within the final 1 week. The destruction of the city and the temple shall also be within the 1 week (70 AD). It follows that the 1 week is not a seven year period. "And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week" - this must relate to a covenant with which we are already familiar, not any new covenant. The most obvious reading is that it is the covenant of grace, firstly because we are familiar with that covenant and secondly because it is a very major theme of scripture, and not a trivial detail such as a covenant between the Antichrist and a people.
Our Lord Jesus speaks of the prophecies of Daniel in Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14. These are parallel passages. Matthew Henry's commentary has a sufficient interpretation of Chapter 24, which is roughly this:- the apostles think the temple will be destroyed towards the end of the world. The Lord Jesus does not say they are wrong because he himself does not know when the end of the world will be (Mark 13:32), but he asserts there is no necessary connection between the destruction of the temple and the end of the world. Sometimes in the is passage He speaks of the end times, and sometimes He speaks of the time of the destruction of the Temple. In Matthew 24:33-36 notice that He speaks of "THIS generation"/"THESE THINGS" and then, in contrast, He speaks of "THAT day" - "this"/"these" refers to the time of the temple destruction, "that" refers to the end times. And He finishes the whole discourse with a warning that we should always be ready.
The warnings relating to the book of Daniel are local to the land of Judaea and to Jerusalem, "then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains", because it is a local judgement, and an approaching judgement - "THIS generation shall not pass, till all THESE things be fulfilled" (Matt 24:34) - being spoken of.  But of the Day of Judgement, He says "But of THAT day knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only".  Christ told his disciples that the prophecy of destruction in Daniel 9:26 would be fulfilled shortly after his crucifixion, before "this generation", the generation standing before him, "passes away".


What clues for the "sola scriptura" Church did the Apostles leave behind? The question is based on an article, stating

  For me, powerful evidence that sola scriptura was not in the minds of Christians living in the post-apostolic period is that there isn't a hint in the writings of the apostles that it would be.

So what hints did the Apostles leave behind in scripture that upon their departure, the Church should subscribe to sola scriptura?

Sola scriptura (Latin: by Scripture alone) is a Christian theological doctrine which holds that the Christian Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith and practice. -wiki-

Does scripture provide evidence that it is the sole (alone, without other) infallible (incapable of error) rule (plumb line) of faith (things salvific) and practice (faith in action)?

To be clear, this is to say that other things like pronouncements regarding salvation via Tradition or Popes, Patriarchs, and Pastors to the extent such pronouncement is not found in scripture are not necessary for salvation.  For example, some will claim that one must submit to their Pope, Patriarch, or Pastor in order to be saved.  Since that teaching is not in the bible, it is false based on the sola scriptura concept.

So, what does the bible have to say about it being all that's necessary for salvation?

  Luke 1:1-4 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

Luke says I too will write things known by eyewitnesses so you will know with certainty what you believe.  This statement eliminates other sources of information as even important to one's salvation.

  John 20:31 But these [signs-of that which distinguished a person or thing from others-Vines] are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

John says he wrote so you might believe unto salvation.  How many readers believe the apostles left something out that is necessary for your salvation?  Again, this statement is clearly telling us the apostles wrote all things necessary.  As eyewitnesses, and guided by the Spirit, I wouldn't suggest to hint that they were fallible and left things to chance.

  Acts 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

Things important, the apostles had recorded and preserved.

  Romans 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

Did God fail to have His will and revelation written down? Did He have it written in any manner but correctly and accurately?

  Romans 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

Please note that Paul does not mention unwritten, oral Tradition spoken by such and such so-called infallible person as things necessary for our hope.

  1 John 1:3-4 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.  And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full [complete].

Please note the plural "we".  We write what we witnessed to you that your joy may be complete.  Again, this is scripture alone.

  Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

Writing down about the common salvation once delivered.  Hold on to it as they wrote it.

  2 Peter 3:1-2 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:

In this Peter tells us the same thing to which Paul testifies.

  Eph. 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

All things necessary, being the foundation, are found written by the apostles and prophets.

So, these scriptures (and others) were written by apostles who tell us what sola scripture claims.  Scripture is the infallible, sole rule of faith and practice.  It is the plumb line for Christian faith and practice.


Old Testament Evidence of the Hypostatic Union There are people who don't believe that God can become a man, as we Christians say He did as Jesus. Is there any evidence that God is able to put on flesh in the Old Testament? What logical arguments for the possibility can we offer?

In the Old Testament God does take physical forms however the incarnation of the Messiah is unique. Hypostatic union means human and divine natures united in one person. It would be misleading to say the OT appearances of God as an angel, man or tree are hypostatic union. Some helpful references from the tanakh -
 The Hebrew Bible Teaches Complex Monotheism Long Before Greek Philosophical Religion :

  In the following quotes, Sommer points to God’s visit with Abraham in
  Genesis 18-19 as an example of early biblical teaching attesting to
  the one, true God’s multiplicity of personhood. Genesis 18, a J text,
  provides one of the most revealing cases. At the outset of that
  chapter, we read, “Yhwh manifested Himself to Abraham amidst the trees
  of Mamre while Abraham was sitting at the entrance of his tent, at the
  heat of the day. He lifted up his eyes and saw three men coming toward
  him” (Genesis 18.1-2). The juxtaposition of these two sentences (which
  are from a single Pentateuchal source) implies that Yhwh appears in
  the form of three men, or, at least in the form of one of the three
  men. 8 Abraham, however, does not realize that his visitors are not
  human. He directs his attention especially to one of these men, whom
  he addresses in the singular, using the obsequious courtesy normal in
  the ancient Near East: “My Lord, if you find me acceptable, please do
  not pass by your servant” (18.3). All three men subsequently speak in
  18.9; in 18.10 one visitor, still not identified explicitly, predicts or promises to return months later, at which time Abraham will have a
  son. Thus this visitor speaks prophetically, which is to say, in God’s
  voice, though whether this is because the visitor is God or merely
  represents God is not made clear. (The alternation between singular
  and plural continues throughout this passage.) Finally, in 18.13 the
  narrator stops being coy and simply refers to one of the visitors as
  Yhwh. Two of the visitors leave, and the one who remains with Abraham
  is now clearly identified as Yhwh (18.22); Abraham’s knowledge is now
  parallel to the reader’s, for in the discussion that follows it is
  clear that Abraham now knows who the remaining Visitor is. The other
  two beings are subsequently refer to as angels (19.1) It is clear that
  Yhwh appears in bodily form to Abraham in this passage; what is less
  clear is whether all three bodies were Yhwh’s throughout, or whether
  all three were Yhwh’s at the outset of the chapter but only one of
  them is by its end, or whether the other two were merely servants
  (perhaps human, perhaps divine) who, for no clear reason, were
  accompanying Yhwh. In any event, the being who certainly was Yhwh was
  less than the deity’s full manifestation. The visitor was not
  recognizable as God to Abraham at the outset, and he (He?) acts with a
  humility unbecoming a deity as h/He stands waiting before Abraham (at
  least according to what even traditionalist scholars regard as the
  original text of verse 22). Further, even though the visitor is
  clearly identified as Yhwh by the middle of the chapter and refers to
  God in the first person while speaking, h/He announces h/His intention
  to “come down” from heaven to observe Sodom and Gomorrah in verse 21 –
  even though H/he is already down on earth at this point. This visitor
  clearly is and is not identical with Yhwh; more precisely, He is Yhwh,
  but is not all of Yhwh or the only manifestation of Yhwh; rather, He
  is an avatar, a “descent” of the heavenly God who does not encompass
  all of that God’s substance. – Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God
  and the World of Ancient Israel, p. 40-41

  A similar phenomenon occurs in the famous J narrative in Genesis 32 in
  which Jacob wrestles with a being initially described simply as a
  “man” (32.25). One soon senses that this man is in fact some sort of
  otherworldly being, because he cannot remain on earth once the sun
  rises and because his name is a secret. (It is perfectly normal to
  find a text referring to an angel as an [man] in the Hebrew Bible; see
  Genesis 18.2, 19.1, Judges 13.16; Zechariah 1.8, 11; Daniel 9.21.)
  Jacob names the place of this encounter Peniel (“face of God”), saying
  “I have seen ‘elohim face to face, yet my life was saved” (32.31). The
  word 'elohim' can refer both to a lower ranking divine being (or angel)
  and to the God also known as Yhwh, and it is not clear which meaning
  the text intends here. Hosea 12.4-6, interestingly takes it to mean
  both as it summarizes this story in poetic parallelism: “In his might
  he wrestled ‘elohim, He wrestled an angel (mal’akh) and prevailed….It
  was Yhwh, the God of hosts; Yhwh was His name.” One might initially
  suggest that in the first of these lines the word 'elohim' means the
  plural noun “divine beings” and not the singular noun “God,” but the
  text goes on immediately to identify the 'elohim:' “It was Yhwh…”
  (12.6). In other words, in Hosea 12 the being who wrestled with Jacob
  was not a mal’akh who also could be called an 'elohim;' rather, it was
  the God Yhwh, who can also be termed a mal’akh. The reason for the
  apparent confusion between God and angel in these verses from Hosea is
  simply that both passages, Hosea 12 and Genesis 32, reflect a belief
  that the selves of an angel and the God Yhwh could overlap or that a
  small-scale manifestation or fragment of Yhwh can be termed a mal’akh.
  – Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient
  Israel, p. 41

  Evidence of this sort of angel is not limited to the Pentateuch. In
  the story of the commissioning of Gideon, a mal’akh appears to Gideon
  from underneath a tree and speaks to him (**Judges 6.11-13), but as the
  story progresses, we are told simply “Yhwh turned to face him and
  said…” (verse 14).** Like Abraham in Genesis 18, Gideon at first does
  not realize that his visitor is divine. As James Kugel observes Gideon
  “is certainly unaware that this is “the angel of the LORD,” or else he
  would do what everyone else does in such circumstances, bow down in
  reverential awe. Instead, he fixes on the stranger’s pious greeting in
  order to give him a somewhat impious retort [which can be
  paraphrased:] “Oh yeah? If the LORD is with us, where is He now?” Then
  the angel turns to him and says, “Go in this strength of yours and
  save Israel yourself from the Midianites – am I not the one who is
  sending you?” Certainly this should have tipped him off: who could
  this “I” be if not God Himself? Yet it is only after the next
  exchange, when he is told, “But I will be with you and you will defeat
  the Midianites to a man,” that Gideon begins to suspect that the
  visitor is not an ordinary human. Even so, he is still not sure: he
  wants proof, a sign…It is only after the flame magically consumes the
  offering and the angel himself disappears that Gideon’s moment of
  confusion may truly be said to be over.” The reader may share some of
  Gideon’s confusion. The text variously identifies the speaker as Yhwh
  (verses 14, 16) and Yhwh’s mal’akh (12, 20, 21). Indeed, Gideon’s
  visitor sometimes speaks in the first person of God (verses 14, 16)
  and sometimes in the third (verse 12). One might want to argue that
  Yhwh was located in heaven and spoke through a lower ranking divine
  being sent to earth with a message, but it is specifically Yhwh who
  turns His face toward Gideon in verse 14. At the same time, we are
  told (verse 22) that Gideon saw Yhwh’s mal’akh, and even though it was
  Yhwh who turned to face Gideon, it was the mal’akh who left the place
  (verse 21). The text seems self-contradictory only if one insists that
  an angel is a being separate from Yhwh. On the other hand, if one can
  understand angel as a small-scale manifestation of God or even a being
  with whom Yhwh’s self overlaps, the text coheres perfectly well. –
  Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel,
  p. 42-43


By what authority does the old Catholic Encyclopedia call itself Catholic? This may seem like a dumb question, but I think it could be useful to people who look at links on the internet to the old Catholic Encyclopedia (which is heavily referenced on wikipedia for Christianity related entries) and I don't know the answer to it.

Last year, Pope Benedict promulgated a letter requiring institutions that call themselves Catholic to adhere to certain standards.  Certain Internet television networks critical of Bishops have been warned not to call themselves "Catholic".

Did anyone care 100 years ago whether some work, produced without direct involvement of the Catholic Bishops, would have called itself Catholic?

Generally, the Bishops are not in the business of writing and publishing scholarly works. What happens is that Catholic authors write a work, then seek official permission to publish (imprimatur), and an endorsement that the contents are not contrary to the faith (nihil obstat). The original Catholic Encyclopedia obtained both (which are visible at the bottom of every article at the New Advent website, such as the one on Aachen:

  Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. March 1, 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.


Is there a non-Catholic view of purification of the spirit after physical death? Is there a non-Catholic view of purification of the spirit after physical death?

This is related to the phrase "saved by fire" in 1 Corinthians 3:15.

ON THE TEACHING OF PURGATORY

The idea of purification or cleansing of a saved human spirit after its physical death on earth is a well known idea in all professing Christians. The differences come only because of various interpretations regarding the nature of this life-after death purgation of the saved.

ROMAN CATHOLIC STANCE ON PURGATION

Roman Catholicism teaches that purgation in the next life occurs in a place called "purgatory" wherein a saved human spirit pays for or atones for , not his sins, but rather, the temporal punishment of his sins. There is no exact duration when someone will finally enter heaven but it is said that as soon as the temporal punishment is satisfied, heaven is the surest destiny of the purged spirit.

The sad fact is that the Bible never described nor stated that a saved spirit is in a place of purification wherein he is paying for the temporal punishment of his sins. In fact, none of the people in the Bible ever expected such a place!

BORN AGAIN CHRISTIAN STANCE ON PURGATION

Born Again Christians teaches that purgation in the next life is not a place but a state of the saved human spirit. It is a state or condition which the Scriptures describes as instantaneous. When Christ comes again all believers whether dead in body or alive in spirit will be glorified (i.e. bodies changed from mortal to immortal) in just a twinkling of an eye!

  1 Cor. 15:52 "It will happen in a moment, in the blink of an eye, when
  the last trumpet is blown. For when the trumpet sounds, those who have
  died will be raised to live forever. And we who are living will also
  be transformed."

Regarding the disembodied saved human spirits (James 2:26). They do not go to a place called Purgatory but to Paradise itself, in Heaven where Jesus lives. As soon as the body gave up the ghost (i.e. spirit) then it will be with Jesus Christ our Lord.

  2 Cor. 5:8 "we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be
  absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord."

THE CRUX OF THE MATTER

1 Cor. 3:15 speaks only of these:
1) If a person's work is burned up ( not if a person is burned up)

2) He will suffer loss ( not suffer loss of salvation but of suffer loss of rewards - v. 14)

3) saved as by fire ( not saved by fire)
1 Corinthians 3:15 is about believers in Christ facing the judgment seat of Christ ( 2 Corinthians 5:9-11). The clearest meaning we can have from the context of 1 Corinthians 3:15 is that if a believer's works are completely judged as worthless even though they have trusted in Christ for their own salvation, it will be like they have been snatched from a fire - they themselves are safe, but everything they labored for is destroyed and unsalvageable.

This interpretation of 1 Corinthians 3:15 that is held by Born Again Christians is supported by both the immediate context and greatext context of the Holy Bible.

Old Testament

  "I overthrew some of you as I overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. You were
  like a burning stick snatched from the fire, yet you have not returned to me," declares the LORD. ( Amos 4:11 NIV)

  "I destroyed some of your cities, as I destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.
  Those of you who survived were like charred sticks pulled from a
  fire. But still you would not return to me," says the LORD." ( Amos
  4:11 NLT)

  "And the LORD said to Satan, "I, the LORD, reject your accusations,
  Satan. Yes, the LORD, who has chosen Jerusalem, rebukes you. This man
  is like a burning stick that has been snatched from the fire." (
  Zechariah 3:2 NLT)

New Testament

  "save others by snatching them from the fire; to others show
  mercy, mixed with fear--hating even the clothing stained by corrupted
  flesh." ( Jude 1:23 NIV)

The phrase "saved as by fire" may also include the meaning that the result of losing rewards is a form of catharsis ( purging of emotions) of the mind into deep realization of the divine plan.

This verse best describes what happens in 1 Corinthians 3:15:

  "Now we see things imperfectly, like puzzling reflections in a mirror,
  but then we will see everything with perfect clarity. All that I know
  now is partial and incomplete, but then I will know everything
  completely, just as God now knows me completely" ( 1 Corinthians 13:12
  NLT).

NOTE

  1 Peter 1:6-7 "In this you greatly rejoice, even though now for a
  little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various
  trials, 7that the proof of your faith, being more precious than
  gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found
  to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus
  Christ."

It is highly implied here that the works of the Christian out from the trials in life is the "proof or evidence of his/her faith" and that this works is "tested by fire." It is clear that it is not the Christian that is tested by fire but rather, it is the works that is tested by fire.


According to Jewish Law, is Jesus entitled to the throne of David? Can it be shown from Jewish law/tradition that the legal right to the royal lineage may be passed through adoption, as in the case of Joseph (descendant of David) and Jesus?
It's my understanding that, if Mary is descended from David, it is irrelevant to Jesus because the royal lineage is not passed through the mother but through the father only.
I'm having a hard time understanding the conflicting genealogies of the Messiah.
Thank you in advance for your time,
God bless

Jesus of Nazareth inherits the right to the throne through Joseph, the husband of his mother and his adoptive father. No-one else claimed the child.
The genealogy stated in Matthew's gospel follows the royal line and the crown rights.
No-one else could claim the crown rights by natural generation due to God's prohibition - the curse on Jeconiah (see Jeremiah 22:28-30).
All of this is documented in the public domain. None of it is secret.
The Matthew genealogy shows the crown rights not necessarily passing from father to son and not necessarily the firstborn.
The genealogy in Luke is the direct line straight from Jesus, via Joseph (his adoptive father) back to Adam.
But the royal line, for administrative reasons, does not necessarily follow the direct line. This can be seen, for example, in the Kings and Queens of England and even today there will be discussions about the throne (perhaps) missing a generation and passing directly to the grandson, rather than the firstborn son. This is quite normal.
And, constitutionally, this is not, primarily (in England) a matter only for the Royal family to decide. Constitutionally, others have a say in this. Again, this is quite normal and was so, also, in Israel and, more particularly, in Judah.
Thus Luke's genealogy is the direct line. Matthew's is taken from Jewish records and is the royal line, with the missing generations as required by Jewish law.

Due to religious arguments these simple facts are disputed.
But to the unprejudiced mind they will be seen to be thoroughly logical.


Can people pray with those from other denominations? I recently read an interview with some Russian Orthodox priest, and he was very critical on the matter of common prayers with Catholics or protestants. Basically he said that in Russian Orthodox church there is a ban for such things.

Do people from Catholic or Baptist churches think the same way? Can you pray together with Russian Orthodox Christians for example?

Toward the secondary question of how Catholics approach ecumenical prayer, ecumenism is generally encouraged by the Catechism and the teaching of the bishops.

What is allowed to the faithful Catholic is to join in those spiritual activities which we can engage in together in an honest way, since the Catholic church teaches that all Christians have a real unity by way of our baptism, but also recognizes that we have real differences which have resulted in a visible separation. These activities are most commonly prayer, bible study, and praise/singing (not "worship" as Catholics define it). A Catholic may also be a reader in a non-Catholic gathering if invited. Catholics may also attend services/celebrations which are recognized as valid by the Catholic church, such as the baptism of a relative.

What is not allowed is to participate with other Christians in ways that would be dishonest. For example, in the Catholic conception of communion, when a Catholic receives the Eucharist, they are expressing that they are one with Christ as well as that they are one with the Catholic community. In most cases, the Catholic is also professing a significantly different understanding of what is happening during communion. For these reasons, a Catholic could not participate with a non-Catholic in a communion service, because what they would be "saying" by their actions would be dishonest. Catholics are also taught that it is not appropriate to participate in non-Catholic services if their intent is to seek the things they should be seeking from the Mass. So it would be illicit for a Catholic to attend a non-Catholic service instead of attending Mass in most cases.

This also highlights the differences in the structure of different Christian communities. What it means to be Catholic is to be in communion with the preaching and teaching authority of the bishop of one's diocese, which is handed down from the apostles, where the bishop is himself in communion with the bishop of Rome. However, in other churches, such as many Protestant or Orthodox national churches, there may not necessarily be universal agreement on what is expected, or there may be significantly different local interpretations of canon law or other more universal "touchpoint" documents.

This is not the main question, but I can provide references on particular points if helpful. However, it is usually best to create a separate question if you want to receive several in-depth answers with references.


What is the doctrine of the Trinity? What is the doctrine of the Trinity as defined by Christianity?

Obviously there are three entities involved: God the Father, Christ, and the Holy Spirit, but is there more to the definition?

As you already understand, the doctrine of the Trinity states that there is one God, who exists in three persons. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

From http://carm.org/trinity

  The Father is not the same person as the Son; the Son is not the same
  person as the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit is not the same person
  as Father.  They are not three gods and not three beings.  They are
  three distinct persons; yet, they are all the one God.  Each has a
  will, can speak, can love, etc., and these are demonstrations of
  personhood.  They are in absolute perfect harmony consisting of one
  substance. They are coeternal, coequal, and copowerful.  If any one of
  the three were removed, there would be no God.

...

  There is, though, an apparent separation of some functions among the
  members of the Godhead.  For example, the Father chooses who will be
  saved (Eph. 1:4); the Son redeems them (Eph. 1:7); and the Holy Spirit
  seals them, (Eph. 1:13).

I'd like to expand on that, but there's not much I could expand on that hasn't already been covered in depth on this site.  And while it's really not a complex doctrine, all sorts of heretical teachings come about based on a misunderstanding of it, or a rejection of it.   Rather than going into any more detail here, I'd just recommend browsing the various questions tagged "Trinity" here.


Did the early church believe there were TWO types of descendant from the Nephalim? The Bible quotes from earlier Books like the Book of Adam & Eve, Book of Seth, Book of Jashur etc; Rabboni Yeshua (Our Lord) read these books too and taught them to the early church without remittance, so we can assume that these books are safe for divine council today and that they will confirm or expound what the Holy Bible informs. So I hope this will be classed as a Christian question and not sanctioned in anyway.

In an early Jewish text (I'm still trying to find it) apparently, two angels are discussing historical and future events. They refer to the giants as "Elephants" (who were wiped out in the deluge) and another "race" as "donkeys". These donkeys where other descendants of Nephalim who were normal human size but had superior intelligence. These apparently are still with us today.

Can you tell me the name of this book? Was someone in Noah's Ark a hybrid? How did giants reappear later if they were exterminated in the flood unless a high science brought them back? or does the bible just not tell us about other expeditions by other pre-flood people who too might have escaped the flood?

**I apologize if my question is not clear, I'm fuzzy minded and this is the first time I have used this site and I've just woken up. Good Morning everyone. **

As far as the Bible is concerned about the Nephilim, it seems quite clear that they are annihilated in the Flood, but somehow they survive. The Flood story starts in Genesis six and seems to indicate that the Nephilim were a major reason for sending it.

  The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown. Genesis 6:4

As far as I know, the Bible never gives an explanation for how they survived. That they were giants is affirmed in Numbers and other places as well, the story of Goliath being most notable.

  We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them. Numbers 13:33

Whether these survivors are a separate race or the original Nephilim is not mentioned either. It is hinted, perhaps, that the Nephilim after the Flood were divided into plenty of tribes. Among these were Anakites (perhaps the first that brought about the others), Rephaites (Goliath was one of these and they were also called Emites), and Gittites. There's also the mention of some polydactyl Nephilim, having more than five digits on the hands and feet (1 Chronicles 20:6 and 2 Samuel 21:20). This is a major indication that there was something genetically different with the Nephilim.

The Nephilim are indeed mentioned and talked about much more in non-canonical books, but I'm not familiar with one that describes them as two races, one before and one after the Flood. If the early Church believed such a thing it was either speculative or based on other, non-Scriptural sources.

I've written an answer that covers pretty much everything the Bible has to say about the Nephilim, but it stops short of extra-Biblical sources, seeing that as off-topic for this site:

What were the Nephilim, and what role did they play in the Bible beyond just being mentioned?


Does believing Christ died make you saved? When people say that they believe Christ died and rose again, does that mean they are saved?
An example... an Anglican would say that he/she believes Christ Died for our sins, and rose again, is he/she saved?

Does believing Christ died make you saved?

Romans 10:9  That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

"believe" = pisteuō = trust

Faith is more than an intellectual acknowledgment of a fact. It is a trust in and reliance upon something.

If you were a slave in first century Roman times, you might be sent on an errand to pick something up or carry out some task. If while doing this someone wanted to mess with you, you could say something like, "I belong to Cassius", and the other person would realize that they might be in trouble because they could not mess with someone else's property.

Romans 10:13  For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

If we trust in Jesus so much that we call on his name, we are saved.

Trusting in and calling on are actions that are emblematic of a close relationship. It is this relationship (new life in Jesus) that is the basis of salvation.


What does the Church say about the statements that the Pope Benedict XVI made in the book "God and the World"? In response to my earlier question, apocalypse_info_click_here answered:

  While that article in particular is a hoax... Each point in particular
  has been made and is old news.

  Benedict XVI said that Genesis is based on a myth
  Benedict XVI said that Heaven and Hell are not actual places
  Benedict XVI abolished Limbo of the Children.
  Francis says that atheists can be saved.

  Benedict XVI called Genesis a rehashing of pagan myths The pagan
  creation accounts on which the biblical story is in part based end
  without exception in the establishment of a cult, but the cult in this
  case is situated in the cycle of the do ut des.” “Cardinal” Joseph
  Ratzinger, A New Song for the Lord, 1995, p. 86:

  Benedict XVI abolished the Limbo of the Children and rejects infant
  baptism "This state people called limbo.  In the course of our
  century, that has gradually come to seem problematic to us.  This was
  one way in which people sought to justify the necessity of baptizing
  infants as early as possible, but the solution is itself questionable"
  “Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, God and the World, 2000, p. 401:

I'm a Catholic, and I'd like to know what the Catholic Church says about these controversial statements.

Benedict XVI said that Genesis is based on a myth

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, in his 1995 book, "In the Beginning ...: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall" (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, $13), has expressed well the view I am espousing here. He writes: "It has become clear that the biblical creation narratives represent another way of speaking about reality than that with which we are familiar from physics and biology." The creation stories "represent truth in the way that symbols do -- just as, for example, a Gothic window gives us a deep insight into reality, thanks to the effects of light that it produces and to the figures that is portrays."
Cardinal Ratzinger is not saying that the creation and fall stories are "just a myth," but that they are divinely inspired symbolic narratives that communicate reliable truth about the origins of the world. These stories cannot be dispensed with or cast aside, but have permanent and enduring value. (src)

Benedict XVI said that Heaven and Hell are not actual places
Here is a scanned copy of those pages of his book where he is supposedly said this (hosted on a non Catholic website). If you read what he said in its context, you might understand that he is talking about omnipresence of God. Not the reality of heaven/hell. This is taken out of context as with most of Church's teachings.
Benedict XVI abolished Limbo of the Children.
Nope he did not. The Church has explicitly said that it DOESN'T KNOW what happens to them. So limbo will always remain a valid theory. In other words it is not a dogma of Faith in the first place for Benedict to abolish it. It is just a theological opinion. That's it.

Limbo was never a defined truth of the faith. Personally - and here I am speaking more as a theologian and not as Prefect of the Congregation - I would abandon it since it was only a theological hypothesis. It formed part of a secondary thesis in support of a truth which is absolutely of first significance for the faith, namely, the importance of baptism. …. One should not hesitate to give up the idea of 'limbo' if need be (and it is worth noting that the very theologians who proposed 'limbo' also said that parents could spare the child limbo by desiring its baptism and through prayer); but the concern behind it must not be surrendered. Baptism has never been a side issue for the faith; it is not now, nor will it ever be." -  Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

Francis says that atheists can be saved.
No he did not. He actually never used the word "save" (or salvation) in that conversation.(src). That is he did not say atheists don’t need to believe in God to be saved.
In conclusion
The actual statements are inline with the magisterial teachings of the church and are no way controversial if you are a Catholic. After all peter has the power to bind and loose.


What are some situations documented outside of the Bible in which God intervened in human affairs? As a continuance of whether we can truly know anything about God's affairs and also whether all Christian views need a Biblical basis, I was curious if there were any instances of God's influence on humanity that are not mentioned in the Bible. On a basic level, many people like to believe that God intervenes from time to time in answering prayers; surely all the ones post-Bible aren't documented in the Bible (like, if you had a prayer answered yesterday, obviously it's not in the Bible). I'm looking for something a bit more substantive than small answered prayers though, like God revealing himself to a group of people or something of that nature, which isn't strictly found in the Bible but most/many/some Christians hold the event to be true in the Christian lore.

What are some of the situations accepted by Christians in which God performed some act, or revealed himself, or otherwise influenced mankind in some way that is not mentioned in the Bible (if any)?

It is challenging to get all Christians to believe in anything together; with all the different denominations each has their own particular views of God, of the Trinity, of the validity of each of the various stories in the Bible. Did the flood actually happen? Or is an anecdote, simply there to teach us a lesson? Can a man really live inside of a really big fish? Or was it a whale? Which translation is most accurate?

The learned Christian finds that although all Christian men of faith believe in the same God, they vary in the extent of their beliefs. That said, some particular beliefs may be shared more widely than others; for example, the idea that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving is a belief that is probably shared among the great majority of Christians, regardless of denomination. Regarding the question being asked here—whether there is any generally shared belief involving God's intervention in human affairs that is outside Biblical documentation—the simple answer is "No". There is no widely shared belief in any event in which God revealed himself or otherwise intervened in human affairs that is documented outside the Bible. There are some denominations, however, that do profess such beliefs, but they make up a relatively small minority of the Christian whole and as such cannot be taken as representative of the "average" person of Christian faith.

source: dancek


Can all Catholic sacramentals be re-consecrated after being desecrated? When a sacramental, for example, a chalice, an altar, or a church has been desecrated, can it be reconsecrated? If yes, does the desecrated item have to undergo a normal consecration process, or does it have to undergo extra steps for it to become consecrated again? Does it apply to all sacramentals, or only certain types of sacramentals can be re-consecrated?

Thank you!

Sacramentals can lose their blessing for a number of reasons.

  "Items lose their blessing or consecration if they are desecrated, if they are substantially broken such that they can no longer be used for their sacred purpose, or if they are publicly sold. If an item is sold by one individual to another for only the price of the material itself, that is, if no profit is made, the blessing remains. For example, if you were to give someone a blessed rosary or sell it to him at cost, he would not have to have it re-blessed. If you were to sell a blessed rosary to someone for profit, he would need to take it to a priest to be blessed."
  The word desecration is commonly used in regard to churches, altars, chalices, etc.

For churches, altars etc. lose their consecration:

  (1) A church loses its consecration or blessing when the building is destroyed either wholly or in greater part, or when an addition is made to it of larger extent than the original edifice. It does not become desecrated:

•(a) if a portion of the walls and roof falls in, provided the main portion stands, or

•(b) if all the interior plastering becomes detached, or

•(c) if all the crosses disappear, or

•(d) if all the walls are gradually renewed, provided on each occasion the old part is greater than the new, or

•(e) if converted for a while to profane uses, provided it is not polluted (cf. Many, De Locis Sacris).

  (2) An altar (fixed) loses its consecration:

•(a) by a notable fracture of table or its support; as, for instance, if the table were broken into two large pieces, or if an anointed corner were broken off, or if the support were seriously impaired, or if one of the columns were displaced;

•(b) by removal of the table from its support, so as to disjoint them;

•(c) by displacing the relics, or cover of the sepulchre (cf. Schulte, Consecranda, p. 222).

  (3) An altar-stone loses its consecration:

•(a) by removal of the relics;

•(b) by fracture or removal of the cover of the sepulchre;

•(c) by a notable fracture of the stone;

•(d) by breakage of the anointed corner of stone.

  (4) As to the chalice and paten, see ALTAR, under subtitle Loss of Consecration.

The Church has a special **Rite for the reconciling of a profaned church. **

  "If a church that was blessed is profaned, it may be reconciled by the pastor or by any priest who has his permission, expressed or presumed. The altar should be entirely bare. It should be prearranged that the officiants can conveniently go around the building, both outside and inside..."

There are also special prayers used in the Rite of reconciling of profaned cemetery.

Thus it stands to reason that if sacramentals are desecrated or lose their blessing through whatever means they may be re-consecrated or blessed by a priest.


Which scriptures tells us that Jesus laughed or was happy? I know that Jesus wept. Where can I find in the bible that Jesus expressed joy, laughter or happiness?

The classic book on this subject is The Humor of Christ by Elton Trueblood.  While it is true that the Scripture rarely tells Jesus' emotion, there are considerable places in Scripture where Jesus is most likely making a joke:

When the Syrophoenician woman quips back that even the dogs get the crumbs
When the Pharisees strain out the gnats but swallow a camel
When Jesus describes the Pharisees as the blind leading the blind

Additionally, we may not have 'Jesus laughed," but we know that Jesus loved a party:

His first miracle was at a party, turning water into wine (and embarrassing Baptists ever since).
Matthew 9:15 "Jesus replied, "Do wedding guests mourn while celebrating with the groom? Of course not. But someday the groom will be taken away from them, and then they will fast." - basically telling the Pharisees to lighten up about the fact that the disciples weren't fasting.
Numerous parables about wedding feasts.  This was almost a staple of the genre.

And, finally, Jesus upbraids the Pharisees for their double-mindedness on the subject of fun in Matthew 11:16 - 19:

  To what can I compare this generation? They are like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling out to others:

  17“ ‘We played the pipe for you,
  and you did not dance;
  we sang a dirge,
  and you did not mourn.’

  18For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ 19The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’ But wisdom is proved right by her deeds.”


In which languages could the Tridentine Mass be said? I know that the Tridentine Mass was always said in Latin, but have there ever been exceptions to this rule? I heard that some exceptions were allowed, but have no known sources to back up this statement!

If by “Tridentine Mass” the O.P. means the Mass promulgated by Pope Pius V in 1570 (probably better termed the “traditional Roman Rite”), which was used widely in that form until the liturgical reforms after Vatican II (and is still used to varying degrees today), then the answer is that it is basically only used in Latin, with a small number of exceptions that I am aware of.
Although the Council of Trent did not expressly forbid translating the Mass into the vernacular, it did emphatically assert that the Mass need not be celebrated in the vernacular:

Si quis dixerit … lingua tantum vulgari missam celebrari debere …: anathema sit.
If anyone should say … that the Mass should be celebrated only in the vernacular language …, let him be anathema (Session XXII, Canon 9, my translation).

In practice, however, the liturgical books were only issued in Latin; therefore, this Mass was very seldom celebrated in any language but Latin.
I am aware of one historical exception: in the regions that were part of the old Roman province of Dalmatia (basically modern day Croatia), the Mass was often celebrated in Old Slavonic (which is, however, more or less the Slavic equivalent of Latin).
Mention should also be made of the Missal used in Catholic Anglican ordinariates, published in 2015, which is very close to the traditional Roman Rite. This rite is based on some versions of the Anglo-Catholic liturgy that are, in turn, based on the old Roman Rite.
(Naturally, it is also possible that individuals translated the Mass and celebrated in the vernacular without authorization.)


Torment of Unbelievers vs those who take the Mark of the Beast Revelation 11:10-11

  10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
  11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

Questions:

1) Is this torment in Hell, or while they are alive?

Since it's "for ever and ever", I'm inclined to believe it's in Hell.

2) While the Holy Angels + God is watching, are the Saints not watching?

3) If it's in Hell, are unbelievers (who did not receive the mark of the beast) treated differently from those who did receive the mark of the beast?

4) Any additional insights on this vs being thrown into the lake of fire is also welcome.

I believe Hell is just eternal separation from God. The torment will be from those  who have denied Jesus. But the day will come when God will put it onto everyones heart that he is real , it will be too late to repent and this is where the nashing and grinding of teeth will be


What does it mean to "worship God" to Christians in general? When Christians worship or pray to God, generally what is in their mind? Do they pray to God who is one person among Trinity or do they pray to all three of them as one?

I am asking about what is in their mind in general, not what should be in their mind theoretically.

In the Nicene Creed, one of the oldest formulations of the Faith, and one which is repeated every Sunday by a large portion of Christianity, it says of the Holy Spirit:

  I believe in the Holy Spirit, ... who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets

In theory then, all three members of the Trinity are worshipped and glorified equally.

That said, your question specifically asks for practice, not theological formulation.  And, since the Trinity is a hard concept to grok, one should expect significant deviation in practice.  That being said, both in my Baptistic and Episcopalian circles, it is not all uncommon to begin a prayer with "Father God Almighty" (I do) and to end with "All these things we pray in Jesus' name."  That one should so easily morph from one to the other speaks to the fuzziness of the distinction in our minds.

When discussing the role/s of the Godhead, study leads us to separate the individual persons of the godhead.  Reduction is a useful thing in study - that's why we dissect things.  That said, when you cut something up, sometimes you kill it :)  I say that to say that my formulation of prayer (again, not uncommon) shows how we can dissect the roles, but still see the sum "Three-In-One" as one being.

Mormons and other non-Trinitarians (a very small percentage of Christians) very clearly believe God the Father and God the Son to be two separate people - but those of us who are Trinitarian tend to be a little wibbly-wobbly on the whole thing.  In practice, we have a lot of bi-natarian theology (God the Father zaps you, and Jesus' blood saves you. That Holy Spirit Guy? Only Pentecostals and charismatics even know who he is!) - but even there, most Christians realize that Jesus is correct when he says "I and the Father are One."

I can only speak for me when I pray - I see the two fuzzily morphing in and out of oneness together - but I suspect that fuzziness is pretty common.


Cities of Refuge - Churches of Refuge In the Old Testament, God asked Joshua to set aside six cities where those accused of manslaughter may flee to for protection  against their avenger!

7 And they appointed Kedesh in Galilee in mount Naphtali, and Shechem in mount Ephraim, and Kirjatharba, which is Hebron, in the mountain of Judah.

8 And on the other side Jordan by Jericho eastward, they assigned Bezer in the wilderness upon the plain out of the tribe of Reuben, and Ramoth in Gilead out of the tribe of Gad, and Golan in Bashan out of the tribe of Manasseh. (Joshua 20: 7-8).

Are there presently any Protestant Christian Churches that both actively and legally practice the "Law of Sanctuary" somewhere in our world? If so, what are the reasons for doing so?

Yes there are certainly protestant churches that practice sanctuary.

To start with a little history, the practice of being able to 'seek sanctuary' in a church was written in Medieval English law. It was abolished in 1623, although vestiges of it existed up to the 18th Century.

In modern times few countries (none that I know of) provide for legal immunity of a fugitive just because they enter a church. However this has not prevented the practice of sanctuary, mostly for refugee claimants rather than criminals. In Canada the complete absence of any legal protection has not prevented refugees from seeking protection in churches when scheduled for deportation.

  In the past 30 years, more than 50 unsuccessful refugee claimants have sought sanctuary within a Canadian church to avoid deportation, according to University of Windsor researcher Randy Lippert.

In most cases the reason for the acceptance by the church is compassion for people who face life-threatening situations.

  Where a congregation’s attitude changes is “when you know that they’re going to face death or torture or imprisonment when they go home.” Canada’s refugee system is designed to shield claimants from mortal danger, but [a church member] said there are still plenty of cracks in the system, be it the bad advice of an immigration consultant, a difficulty with paperwork or even the simple nuances of speaking through a translator.

Refugee claimants have no automatic right to stay in a church.

  In a 2010 York University research paper, Montreal pastor Darryl Gray said he turns away requests for sanctuary on a weekly basis, “because they are often economic refugees who can’t prove they face physical danger.”

In these cases there is no legal reason why a refugee cannot be removed from a church as from a private home. However in practice it is rarely done.

  Church arrests are bad optics, particularly as sanctuary-takers are not working illegally or drawing social services, said [a law professor]. Besides, “what government wants to take on a religious community acting to uphold the value of providing refuge to strangers in need?” he said.

There are churches doing similar things in the UK.

In the US the modern Sancuary movement began in the 1980s to support Central American refugees fleeing civil war, and involved more than 500 congregations of many denominations.