Why are church leaders called "Father"? Could anyone explain to me why some groups of Christians call their leaders "Father"?

It is out of respect for the type of relationship they are supposed to have with the people that they lead.

There are several places in Paul's letters where he says he has become the Father of those who he leads spiritually (1 Cor 4:15, Gal 4:19, Phlm 10 ).  But no where where it is exhorted in general to call the presbyters or elders by the title "Father".

Some people say Jesus says not to call anyone "Father", including Church leaders.  But the reason for calling a church leader "Father" is spiritual fatherhood.  So all the things you can think of that your father is supposed to do for your upbringing and sustaining your body a church leader is supposed to do for the upbringing of your spirit and sustaining your soul in friendship with Jesus.


Why aren't the Biblical Apocrypha included in the protestant Bible? Biblical Apocrypha are portions of Bible that are printed in some editions of Bible between Old and New Testament, sometimes called inter-testament. When Martin Luther was translating Latin bible into German language, he left the translation to other people, and labeled it as "Apocrypha: These Books Are Not Held Equal to the Scriptures, but Are Useful and Good to Read".

My Question is, why are they not included in the modern protestant Bible?

These books of the Bible were accepted as part of the canon (part of the Bible). These books have been around for a long time. First of all, the books called apocrypha are related to the Old Testament. The New Testament is accepted with its 27 books among the major Christianity branches (Catholics, Protestants, Evangelicals).

The Old Testament Canon was taken from the Jewish Bible. The Jewish recognized an historical value to the apocrypha, but not one of authority. The Catholics started to view the apocrypha as part of the Bible during the counter-reforme in 1546 (Concile of Trente). Principally to object the protestant attack on particular doctrine like the purgatory.

In fact, the protestants returned to the position of Jerome, who presented the Old Testament with the apocrypha separated to the Old Testament (Prologus galeatus) around 390.

--Source Magazine Theologie Systematique, Article : Apocryphes ou Deuterocanoniques by Henri Blocher. (Sorry for the French source) Here is the English transcript

Why are those books not included in the post-reformed Bible? Simply beacause for the Protestants these books were never part of the Old Testament. The New Testament does not quote them, as it does for most of the Old Testament. The Jewish people did not see those books on the same levels then the rest of the Old Testament Canon.


What kind of Roman cross was used to crucify Jesus? Possible Duplicate:
  Crucifixion — torture stake or cross?

Apparently there were at least three kinds of crosses used by the Romans to crucify criminals. One was called ‘Crux decussate’ in the shape of an ‘X’. The second, Crux Commissa, in the form of a ‘T’. Finally, they used, the Crux immissa in the form of a small 't' like what we usually see in the movies, typcical church crucifixes, or on jewelry, etc.

Is there any ancient records of the symbol of the cross in church history that would indicate what type of cross the Romans actually used to crucify Christ?

I ask this trivia type question only because this is the type of thing my older Sunday school kids will throw at me and I have no answer.

The Biblical evidence is a bit ambiguous in this particular case, but tradition definitely says that it was cross in the shape of a small t, the common one found in classical and medieval art. Some thoughts from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
It states the cross shape explicitly:

The cross on which Jesus Christ was nailed was of the kind known as immissa, which means that the vertical trunk extended a certain height above the transverse beam

First, Biblical proof that it could not have been an "X":

We gather as much from St. Matthew (27:37), where he tells us that the titulus, or inscription containing the cause of His death, was placed, "over", the head of Jesus Christ

And then confirmation that it was a "✝" with historical evidences:

St. Irenæus (Adv. Haer., II, xxiv) says that the Cross had five extremities: two in its length, two in its breadth, and the fifth a projection (habitus) in the middle
Nonnus confirms the statement that Jesus Christ was crucified on a quadrilateral cross.

Interestingly, there seems to have been a seat for Christ as well (that fifth extremity).

St. Irenæus... says that the Cross had a fifth extremity, on which the Crucified One was seated

But, the foot support probably wasn't there:

[That] the Crucifixion there [was] a wooden support... is very doubtful.


How will Satan rage in the hearts of the children of men? (LDS perspective) The following passage from The Book of Mormon teaches that people will be strongly influenced by Satan in the last days, which Mormons believe are happening now.  Are there scriptural references or leadership comments that explain how this influence will be manifest?

  For the kingdom of the devil must shake, and they which belong to it must needs be stirred up unto repentance, or the devil will grasp them with his everlasting chains, and they be stirred up to anger, and perish; for behold, at that day shall he rage in the hearts of the children of men, and stir them up to anger against that which is good. And others will he pacify, and lull them away into carnal security, that they will say: All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth, all is well—and thus the devil cheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to hell. (2 Nephi 28:19–21)

The Book of Mormon Student Manual quotes the following from a discourse by Richard C Edgley of the Presiding Bishopric. This is the best quote I've found that answers your question succinctly:

We have … had very specific warnings regarding Satan’s power, influence, and determination. Nephi prophesied more than twenty-five hundred years ago of the trials and turbulence that you would face. You all know the scripture. It is found in the 28th chapter of 2 Nephi:
[Quotes verses 20-21]
I believe this scripture is true. I believe the time is now. And I believe the target is you. For the most part, Satan has made great strides in establishing and selling his value system... ‘Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die’ (2 Nephi 28:7) and ‘There is no hell’ (2 Nephi 28:22). His is a value system based upon selfishness, self-indulgence, and immediate gratification... We see cultures infested with drugs, sex, alcohol, pornography, laziness, and many other spiritually devastating practices.

I think the main answer to your question is in those last few sentences. Those seem to be a few of the specific manifestations you are looking for.
You may also want to check out this BYU website. It lets you look up all of the General Conference addresses that reference a particular scripture. Just look up the verses and you'll get a list of discourses that you can study that pertain to those verses. You may be able to find more information there, scattered across different talks.


How big was the wilderness in which John the Baptist lived and preached? At Matthew 3:1-2 we read :

In those days John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness of Judea, proclaiming,  “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.”

One wonders how John the Baptist managed to get a lot of audience in the wilderness. It could be that the place was very much in proximity to human habitation, or was on the way to some centre of pilgrimage.

I wish to know where exactly in Judea  the wilderness in which John preached was, and how big it was .

While the exact location of John's ministry is not known, we know that it was around the Jordan, with John 1:28 specifically placing it at "Bethany beyond the Jordan." The traditional location is places it just north of the northeastern corner of the Dead Sea. Jerusalem, the center of Second Temple Judaism, sits at the top of a verdant hill country. But as one makes the 10-mile downhill trip towards the Jordan, the land becomes a barren wasteland devoid of vegetation, except for the area immediately adjacent to the Jordan.  This area extends from a few miles outside Jerusalem all the way through the Jordan Rift Valley until you hit the major settlements in modern day Jordan.  The valley itself is about 10 miles wide (measurements taken from Google Maps).

Your question about how he managed to gain attention in a remote area is a good one.  One thing to keep in mind is that the late Second Temple Period is a time of religious unrest, when many different groups and figures were competing for their vision of Judaism to be the dominant strain.  Sects like the Pharisees and Sadducees, which focused on the study of Torah and Temple piety respectively, were generally centered in more populous areas (especially Jerusalem).  However, there were more than a few other groups who made their home in the wilderness, including John, the Essenes/Qumran community, and eventually the revolutionaries of Masada.  So John's location is not without precedent.

Bearing this in mind, along with Jerusalem's relative proximity to the area where John is supposed to have been preaching, we can paint a picture of a murmur among the people of Jerusalem about this man and his disciples in the nearby wilderness, enough of a murmur that the religious leaders came out to see what the commotion was all about.  Three out of the four Gospels specifically mention people coming from Jerusalem (John 1:19, Mark 1:4, Matthew 3:5), which makes sense based on what we have said.  What's perhaps more remarkable is not that the people of Jerusalem heard of John, but that Jesus did.  From all the way in Nazareth, it's over 60 miles to get to that part of the country.  Jesus enters this scene as the outsider, the country boy from the backwoods of the Galilee among a crowd of the educated and the urbanites.


Were there indulgences sold for those who had no family when they died? The book Martin Luther: A Life by James A. Nestingen describes the indulgences around the time of 1517, and says that they could be bought for oneself or others, typically family members.

An indulgence takes the place of some other form of penance. So, having undertaken a pilgrimage or made some other sacrifice, financial or otherwise, the penitent could obtain indulgences that could be used to satisfy penalties for oneself or for a deceased soul. […]
The slogan [used by John Tetzel to sell indulgences] was, “When a coin in the coffee rings, a soul from purgatory to heaven springs,” and it came complete with lurid portrayals of dead relatives waiting urgently in purgatory for someone to buy their release.

It’s clear that indulgences were sold to individuals for the benefit of their deceased family members. But were they ever sold for the benefit of people who had no family?
For instance, if an orphan or a widow died and there were no family members alive to buy an indulgence, would people in their community be encouraged to buy indulgences on their behalf? Similarly, would indulgences be bought on behalf of nondescript people, like “someone who has been forgotten and has no family members to buy an indulgence”?

Yes, they were. I'm not sure about generic, nondescript people, but they were sold to friends of the dead. Tetzel apparently marketed to all people indiscriminately, encouraging them to purchase indulgences for anyone they knew who had passed. *The Jesuit Priest in the Family, the Church, and the Parish: In reply to a Letter by W.H. Anderson says this on page 86:

  Tetzel also asserted that Indulgences not only saved the living, but also the dead. He used, likewise, to harangue his auditory in such strains as, "Priest! noble! merchant! wife! young girls! young men! hear your departed parents, and other friends, crying to you from the bottom of the abyss! 'We are enduring horrible torments! A little alms would deliver us; you can give it, yet you will not!'"

Emphasis is the author’s, bold text is mine. Credit is due to Tis_Bearself from Catholic Answers for this answer.


How does one discern between thoughts inspired by the Holy Spirit and those produced from themselves This question has been nagging at me for a while, how can one tell the difference between honest-to-God inspiration from the Holy Spirit and thoughts that are induced by themselves out of the needs or fears of the person.  The Spirit is described as a 'still small voice' which can be strikingly similar to the things you tell yourself if you want to convince yourself of something.

Example: I have this friend who went on about three dates with a guy before he proposed to her claiming he had prayed to God and received revelation from the Spirit that they were meant to be together. She of course didn't buy into it and rejected him flat out, because he had convinced himself of revelation that was simply untrue, no matter much he wanted it to be.

How can we prevent ourselves from making similar mistakes?

The Catholic Church has a fairly well-established attitude (and rules) towards private revelation. They're summarized in Contemplation - Revelations and visions. The first two, most important, "rules" regarding private revelation are explicitly mentioned:

Firstly, the spiritual director must judge whether the revelation directs the person to deeper love of God or the saints. If so, the revelation is at least "provisionally" inspired. If not, and especially if a call to some [costly] endeavor is present, the director must demand signs from God. (Note: The first rule implies that the person has a spiritual director, and that the spiritual director knows their prayer life!)

Secondly, the receiver of a revelation should resist the revelation, accepting it only after a spiritual director decides that the "seer" should place some confidence in them. (Again, an experienced spiritual director is implied!)

These particular rules seem pretty strict, intended to safeguard the "seer" and The Church against "big", public deceptions. But, slightly less stringent rules along a similar vein apply to revelations of a seemingly limited, personal matter. In particular, I'd suggest looking into St. Ignatius's Discernment of the Spirits. On the more strict end, there are 22 rules. But, the gist of it is knowing and loving God, first and foremost, and then recognizing spiritual "consolation" and "desolation."

In very rough terms, consolation is a feeling of "being set on fire with love for God." Desolation is a feeling of uncertainty, turmoil, or confusion. The basics of discernment involve, usually under the guidance of a spiritual director, imagining a decision and feeling whether it gives you consolation -- whether it sets you on fire with love for God. If not -- and especially if desolating -- it's probably not God's call.

It might be worth picking up a copy of Ignatius's spiritual exercises.

I think you'll find that the rules for discernment also call for a spiritual director. And that they also call for some reluctance in leaping to assume you've heard God's voice.

Remember: If God wants you to know something, He's not going stop bugging you after the first call. The prophets had a tendency to ignore their visions at first. Be a good prophet and do the same!


Is there any extra-biblical evidence of tongues from the first, or even second, century? This is not a question whether tongues exist, yesterday or today, but I'm looking for extra-biblical writings on the existence thereof.

Is there any documentation outside of the Bible, either from Christian or secular sources, specifically during the first or even second century, discussing speaking in tongues?

Ronald A. N. Kydd in his book Charismatic Gifts in the Early Church mentions several second-century quotes that he argues refer to glossolalia, what we call speaking in tongues.  His work clearly deals with the first century as well, but in that period he mentions only prophecy, not tongues.

The first evidence for speaking in tongues that Kydd mentions comes from the Ecclesiastical History (5.16) of Eusebius.  He cites the second-century history of Apolinarius of Hierapolis, who criticizes Montanism.  Describing the movement's namesake, the text reads:

  And he became beside himself, and being suddenly in a sort of frenzy and ecstasy, he raved, and began to babble and utter strange things, prophesying in a manner contrary to the constant custom of the Church handed down by tradition from the beginning. (§7)

Similarly:

  And he stirred up besides two women, and filled them with the false spirit, so that they talked wildly and unreasonably and strangely (§9)

Kydd argues that this is glossolalia, though the text does not state this explicitly.  Kydd makes the same argument about an ambiguous passage in Origen's writings Against Celsus, 7.9.  Celsus wrote his work around AD 177, criticizing Christianity, and Origen describes a portion of it as follows:

  Then [Celsus] goes on to say:  “To these promises are added strange, fanatical, and quite unintelligible words, of which no rational person can find the meaning:  for so dark are they, as to have no meaning at all; but they give occasion to every fool or impostor to apply them to suit his own purposes.”

I'll briefly mention that others reject these understandings, such as Nathan Busenitz, arguing that these references are not actually to glossolalia.

The clearest reference to glossolalia from the second century, then, comes from Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5.6.1, written around AD 180:

  In like manner we do also hear many brethren in the Church, who possess prophetic gifts, and who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages, and bring to light for the general benefit the hidden things of men, and declare the mysteries of God, whom also the apostle terms “spiritual,” they being spiritual because they partake of the Spirit, and not because their flesh has been stripped off and taken away, and because they have become purely spiritual. [emphasis added]

This quotation is more clearly understood as glossolalia, though there is debate over the nature of that – for more on the question of what these tongues were understood to be, see: Do any church fathers directly connect “speaking in tongues” with anything other than existing human languages?


What traditions espouse infant baptism and why? What traditions espouse infant baptism and why?

In those traditions, why do parents often baptize their children at very young age, and why is this better than giving their children the opportunity to choose for themselves?

At least the Roman Catholic and Presbyterian churches do. A fairly comprehensive list is available on the wikipedia article.

As to the why, at least from the Presbyterian perspective, children of saints are viewed as being born into a covenantal relationship in similar vein to the males of ancient Israel being required to be circumcised.

Fuller paedobaptist theology is also covered on the wikipedia page.


What does it mean that Jesus, Father, and Holy Spirit are of the same nature but different personas? To be clear right from the start: I have noted that some people do not believe in the doctrine of trinity, namely "three personas, one nature", but my question is not about whether the doctrine is true! It is about understanding the doctrine. Thus this is not a question of opinion.

I have heard multiple times the doctrine that Jesus, Father, and Holy Spirit are personas of God or "one God in three Divine persons" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity). According to Wikipedia:

The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature". In this context, a "nature" is what one is, whereas a "person" is who one is.

But what does this mean?
Sometimes it is compared with water also having three appearances, gas, liquid and ice, but I have been told that this is an example of Modalistic Monarchianism, which, as I have been told is a heresy according to one of the large early church councils. I do not have evidence for any of that because I am recalling from memory and are happy for corrections if I got something wrong. In any case, I see that for instance at the baptism of Christ, the Father, Son and Spirit are all distinctly present and interacting. So I see how this is not like water.
Quoting https://christiantoday.com.au/news/the-trinity-is-like-waterand-other-bad-analogies.html:

Other bad analogies
If water is inadequate, there are a wide array of alternative analogies we can turn to in modern theological parlance. Eggs are one, yet comprise yolk, shell and albumen. The sun comprises the sun itself, its light and its heat.
These are likewise erroneous or even heretical. Each part of the egg make up only one portion of the whole—the yolk is not the fullness of the egg. Yet the orthodox view is that each person of the Trinity is fully divine. Similarly, light and heat are simply creations of the sun, yet it is the heresy of Arianism to claim that the Son or Spirit are mere creations of the Father.

Ok, so I see what we do not mean when talking about the trinity. But what do we mean?
In that context I am not so much looking for a good analogy, but instead of a good explanation of the terms "nature" and "person" in the context of the trinity and in order to understand the trinity.
It seems to me that if those words cannot be defined properly, there is no point in using them in the first place, because that would be the same as stringing together syllables without meaning. In that case I would prefer to say "Jesus, Father, Spirit are distinct and one at the same time and we don't know how that is possible." without introducing fancy words like "nature" or "persona". To be honest, it actually sounds misleadingly similar to "three gods", because a friend of mine and I also have the same "nature" of being human and are two different persons.
EDIT: I was asked to clarify what is unique of my question. In contrast to Are Father, Son, and Holy Spirit explicitly identified as "persons" in any writings directly associated with the Nicene Creed? I would like to get definitions of the words "persona" and "nature" and use these definitions to explain the term "three personas, one nature".

Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one Deity. This is a matter of nature, just as we are one humanity.
But in our humanity we cannot (you and I) be a single humanity. Even if we be conjoined twins, there is only a partial unity.

But since God is Spirit and since 'fulness' is an attribute of divine nature, the persons of Deity are divinely one, in nature and form, in a perfection of union that is indivisible - one God.

See the First Council of Nicea. But some definitions are difficult to understand as they use terminology from outside of scripture or scriptural words (like 'hypostasis' and 'substance' and 'essence') which are not quite as scripture uses them.
What I have stated above ('unity', 'Spirit', 'fulness' and 'form' ) is in terms which are used in scripture.

I and my Father are one.[John 10:30 KJV]

God is Spirit [John 4:24, KJV]

For in him (Christ) dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. [Colossians 2:9, KJV]

... being in the form, God ... [Philippians 2:6, KJV]


What does R. C. Sproul mean by the 'essence' of God? R. C. Sproul discusses and defends the Trinity in this book, What is the Trinity? He explains that God is one essence, composed of three persons, and that the existence of three persons in one essence does not contradict the law of non-contradiction. Now, what does he mean by 'essence'? Why does he use the term 'essence' instead of 'entity'? Does he use the term 'essence' in the same way he would use it in 'the essence of a squirrel' or 'all the squirrelness about the squirrel that makes up the squirrel'?

I realize that there is a similar question: What do we mean by person?  But this one is more focused on the word, essence, which I believe is a technical term in Christianity, not the word person.

To R. C. Sproul and many other Christians, the word essence is a near-synonym of being or substance in a philosophical sense.  It is the English word that he feels best conveys the meaning of the word that the Greeks used when describing unchangeable, ultimate reality: ousios (the present participle of the Greek verb "to be").
Sproul adopts a Platonic understanding of essence, as opposed to existence, saying that essence:

is the being element of something, the substance of it.

This he contrasts with existence, "which is the becoming element."  For Sproul, the key is that the word essence communicates immutability or changeless being.
Now, to your follow-up questions.  Regarding the word entity, we know from the above that Sproul doesn't regard it as close a synonym to ousious as essence.  As to why, we might speculate that in modern English entity tends to add a sense of separateness.  Historically, though both words are rooted in the concept of being, essence enters English earlier and is based on an earlier form of the Latin word esse (to be).
Sproul doesn't employ an example like "squirrelness" in this or his other teaching on the Trinity that I've been able to uncover.  But an analogy like that would likely have some merit, since he regards the essence of something as that which is unchanging and defining.  But the difficulty of understanding the "essence of a squirrel" is obviously magnified when attempting to understand the "essence of God."
Regarding the Trinity, Sproul contrasts essence with subsistence, with the latter term meaning "to stand under":

Thus, [subsistence] gets at the idea that while God is one in essence, there are three subsistences, three persons, that stand under the essence. They are part of the essence. All three have the essence of deity. [...]
There are distinctions between [the members of the Godhead], but the distinctions are not essential, not of the essence. They are real, but they do not disturb the essence of deity. The distinctions within the Godhead are, if you will, sub-distinctions within the essence of God.

For more of Sproul's teaching on this topic, see his booklet What Is the Trinity, chapter 4.  He goes into a bit more detail in a video lecture.  He also touches on the doctrine of the Trinity in other works, including Essential Truths of the Christian Faith.
Etymologies of essence and entity are from m-w.com.


What do Christians do on a Fasting day besides worshipping? While Christians fast, do they only focus on worshipping God (such as bible reading and praying)? If they involve in any other activity besides worshipping God, would fasting be inefficient? What did the people from the bible do on Fasting days?

From wiki:

The Church Fathers have referred to fasting without prayer as "the fast of the demons" since the demons do not eat according to their incorporeal nature, but neither do they pray.

From my understanding, the Orthodox are the only large denomination that participate in regular fasting. Almost every Wednesday and Friday include a vegan diet (except shrimp, scallops, etc.) with no alcohol or olive oil. The entirety of lent is like this as well, except alcohol/olive oil is permitted on Saturday and Sunday and only one meal is permitted per day; in addition, no food at all is permitted the first three days and the the final two days of Lent).
During these periods of fasting, they do not "only focus on worshiping God", as they more than likely work and have families to take care of. However, it is expected that they worship much more than usual, as fasting without worship is worthless (i.e., inefficient).
You can think of it as a continuum as opposed to a black or white answer. If one was to fast and worship 100% of the day, it would be more efficient than one who fasted and worshiped only 30 minutes of the day, which would be more efficient than one who did not fast and worshiped 5 minutes out of the day.
This answer is in regards to the Orthodox perspective, as the Catholics and Protestants don't engage in regular fasting. (The Catholics used to fast but relaxed it to the restriction of no red meat on Fridays, during Lent).


Why didn't Jesus write books of his teachings but charge his apostles to spread the Gospel? I have studied for years, found new writings from discoveries of Archeologists, but not one writing or book or Idea written by Jesus himself. All is hearsay if taken to a court of law to confirm the sayings of Jesus. Why didn't Jesus write himself the Ideas preached by the Apostles? wouldn't that have resolved questions on authority , divinity, and Nature of God?

God wants us to do it.

Deuteronomy 31:19

  Now therefore write ye this song for you, and teach it the children of
  Israel: put it in their mouths, that this song may be a witness for me
  against the children of Israel.

Deuteronomy 17:19

  he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to
  fear the Lord his God, to keep all the words of this law and these
  statutes, to do them

All the preachings will lead into one single point → 'God loves us all'.

John 21:25 says - 'And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen'


What is the LDS definition of "Divinity" Prompted by this comment.

In answering a question on the divinity of Christ, I used the understanding (definition) of the term that is commonly understood in mainline protestant terms.  From http://carm.org/dictionary-divinity

  Divinity is the nature or quality of being God. Within Christianity it
  belongs to God alone. It is also important to note that orthodox
  Christianity believes that Jesus was divine in nature (Col. 2:9) as
  well as being a man. For more information see Jesus' Two Natures.

Mason commented

  One minor point: Latter-Day Saints have a slightly different
  understanding of Jesus and the nature of divinity in general than
  mainstream Christianity, but in no way do they deny the divinity of
  Christ.

However, the LDS teaching is that Jesus is a created being, a son of God just like ordinary men and Satan.

  Jesus, Satan, and all humanity share God the Father as their spiritual
  sire. However, moral agency led Jesus to obey God the Father perfectly
  and share fully in the Father's divine nature and power. The same
  agency led Satan to renounce God, fight Jesus, and doom himself to
  eternal damnation. The remainder of God's children—all of us—have the
  choice to follow the route chosen by Satan, or the path to which
  Christ invites us and shows the way.

The mainline definition of "divinity" includes "Within Christianity it belongs to God alone".  Since the "mainstream" understanding of who Christ is is that Jesus is God, not a physical/spiritual son of God, this bears on the doctrine of the Trinity.

The LDS position is that Jesus is a separate being from God, but is still divine.

Clearly this means that the LDS Church must have a different understanding of the term "divinity".  Divinity must not be applicable to "God alone" if Jesus is not God, and Jesus is divine.

So, all of that said, all I'm trying to get to is what is the LDS definition of "divinity".

Just to head off anticipated non-constructive debate/comments...

I am absolutely not interested in determining if the LDS definition is "right", or "wrong". This site is not the place for that, and non-constructive arguments aren't welcome.  I am just asking what the definition/understanding is.

Also, if my logic is flawed, that can be incorporated into any answer.  It is entirely possible my question is simply based on a misunderstanding of LDS doctrine.  I'm here to learn, so correcting my misconceptions, if there are any, is a welcome response.

Perhaps the greatest difference between mainstream Christianity and LDS theology lies in this point:

  The mainline definition of "divinity" includes "Within Christianity it
  belongs to God alone". Since the "mainstream" understanding of who
  Christ is is that Jesus is God, not a physical/spiritual son of God,
  this bears on the doctrine of the Trinity.

As Latter-Day Saints do not accept the doctrine of the Trinity, of course this understanding of divinity is meaningless within LDS theology.

The Nicene Creed teaches that the Son is "begotten, not made" and is "of one substance with the Father."  This is a somewhat odd choice of words if its intent is to convey an understanding of the nature of God, as something that is begotten--the word refers to the act of having a child--has its own physically separate "substance" (body) from that of its parent(s).

By contrast, Mormonism strives for clarity in this area.  One revelation teaches that:

  The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son
  also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a
  personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in
  us.

  - Doctrine and Covenants 130: 22

As the FAIR article linked to in the question notes, Jesus is held to be a spirit son of God, just as all mankind is.  And this is important to understanding the LDS concept of divine nature.  All living beings reproduce and multiply after their own kind.  A giraffe has little giraffes, a cat produces more cats, a tree's seeds grow into the same type of tree, and so on.  But the highest of living beings is mankind, who was explicitly made in God's image and likeness, and our spirits are directly his children.  By the same principle, we carry his divine nature in an immature state, like any child that has yet to grow up.

The divine nature of Jesus is described in Doctrine and Covenants, section 93:

  21 And now, verily I say unto you, I was in the beginning with the
  Father, and am the Firstborn;

  22 And all those who are begotten through me are partakers of the
  glory of the same, and are the church of the Firstborn.

  23 Ye were also in the beginning with the Father; that which is
  Spirit, even the Spirit of truth;

  24 And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were,
  and as they are to come;

  25 And whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that
  wicked one who was a liar from the beginning.

  26 The Spirit of truth is of God. I am the Spirit of truth, and John
  bore record of me, saying: He received a fulness of truth, yea, even
  of all truth;

  27 And no man receiveth a fulness unless he keepeth his commandments.

  28 He that keepeth his commandments receiveth truth and light, until
  he is glorified in truth and knoweth all things.

  29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light
  of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

We read here that:

Jesus was with the Father in the beginning. Mankind was also, but the distinction is made that Christ was the Firstborn.
Unlike the rest of mankind, Jesus "received a fulness of truth," which can only be received by obedience to the commandments of God.
It is only by being "begotten through me"--what Elder M. Russel Ballard, quoted in the FAIR article, calls being "born again as His sons and daughters in the gospel covenant"--that mankind can partake of his glory.

Here we see the essential difference that makes Jesus more than simply "a son of God," but rather "the Son of God."  He had received a fulness of truth from the beginning.  He is truly divine in every sense of the word, and has been from the beginning.  "By him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God." (Doctrine and Covenants 76:24)

In summary, the question asks:

  The LDS position is that Jesus is a separate being from God, but is
  still divine.

  Clearly this means that the LDS Church must have a different
  understanding of the term "divinity". Divinity must not be applicable
  to "God alone" if Jesus is not God, and Jesus is divine.

To which the Latter-Day Saint would respond that Jesus is a separate being from the Father, but this should not be understood to mean that "Jesus is not God" in any sense, but rather that the Father and the Son (and the Holy Ghost) are separate, distinct beings, who are one in purpose, in knowledge and understanding and will, but not in substance, and work in harmony as God.

However, having clarified that, divinity is still not seen as being applicable to God alone, because it also applies to his children (us), in an immature or embryonic form.  However, that is the subject for another question, as going into it in any depth could make this answer much longer than it already is and take it well off-topic.  It's important to note, though, that Latter-Day Saints hold this to be the very highest part of God's plan:

  For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the
  immortality and eternal life of man.
  - Moses 1:39

Eternal Life is spoken of as here something distinct from immortality (being resurrected to a deathless and physically perfect state); it is defined elsewhere as a quality of life that is like the life of God, who is Eternal, and helping us to achieve this is God's "work and glory."


How did Christian Death Metal arise? I happened to learn that Christian black/death metal bands, along with their niche community were a thing, and was curious when this started and what lead to such a movement, especially since the combination seems so fascinatingly oxymoronic. Is there actually a known rationale/history behind how Christian Death Metal came to be?

How did Christian Death Metal arise?
Christian metal, white metal, Jesus metal or heavenly metal emerged in the late 1970s as a means of evangelization to the wider heavy metal music scene and was pioneered by the American Resurrection Band and Barnabas, the Swedish Jerusalem, and Canadian Daniel Band.
This Christian sub-culture eventually saw the development of Christian Death Metal arise in the 1990s.

Christian metal, also known as white metal, Jesus metal or heavenly metal, is a form of heavy metal music usually defined by its message using song lyrics as well as the dedication of the band members to Christianity. Christian metal is typically performed by professed Christians principally for Christians who listen to heavy metal music and often produced and distributed through various Christian networks.
Christian metal bands exist in most of the subgenres of heavy metal music, and the only common link among most Christian metal bands are the lyrics. The Christian themes are often melded with the subjects of the genre the band is rooted in, regularly providing a Christian take on the subject matter. It has been argued that the marginal yet transnational Christian metal subculture provides its core members with an alternative religious expression and Christian identity, and that the music serves the purpose of offering a positive message through lyrical content. This may not necessarily show a direct connection or reference to the Christian faith but often it does.
Christian metal emerged in the late 1970s as a means of evangelization to the wider heavy metal music scene and was pioneered by the American Resurrection Band and Barnabas, the Swedish Jerusalem, and Canadian Daniel Band. Los Angeles' Stryper achieved wide success in the 1980s. In the mid to late 1980s, extreme metal genres were popularized by bands such as Vengeance Rising, Deliverance, Believer and Tourniquet. In the early 1990s, the Australian death metal band Mortification rose to prominence within its country's underground metal scene. At the turn of the 21st century, the nu metal band P.O.D, with two platinum-selling albums, achieved a mainstream commercial success rivaling that of Stryper. The metalcore groups Underoath, Demon Hunter, As I Lay Dying and Norma Jean (dubbed "The Holy Alliance" by Revolver Magazine) also brought some mainstream attention to the movement in the first decade of the 2000s, achieving ranks in the Billboard 200.
Death Metal
In 1990, the Australian group Mortification became the first widely recognized Christian death metal band. Their 1992 album Scrolls of the Megilloth garnered the band some attention from the heavy metal underground, according to Allmusic.
At roughly the same time, the band Living Sacrifice was creating thrash and death metal, particularly on the albums Nonexistent (1992) and Inhabit (1994), with Allmusic commenting that "the term Christian death metal seems like one of music's most comical oxymorons." Later they "evolved from their early death metal-inspired rumblings into a crushing, staccato-driven, heavily percussive metallic behemoth that pummels listeners with intense riffage and a decidedly personal, though nevertheless, often evangelical lyrical viewpoint." The Minneapolis-based Crimson Thorn is described by Allmusic as "one of the world's most extreme-sounding Christian metal bands." Norwegian band Extol's 1998 album Burial was called "Revolutionary. This release may have single-handedly been responsible for the revival of the Christ-centered extreme metal." The band was popular among both Christian and general metal fans, mostly touring with well-known non-Christian bands. - Christian metal (Wikipedia)

German death metal group Sacrificium live at Elements of Rock 2007, Switzerland.


What does Paul mean by "witchcraft" in Galatians 5:20? I recently came across this:

  Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Gal 5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Gal 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Would Christianity have me believe in [the existence of] witchcraft, too!?

It wouldn't have you believe in witchcraft it would just have you avoid it.

Whether you believe in it or not is entirely separate from it existing, see this wiki about Ouija boards.

So you don't have to believe that Ouija boards work, I personally don't. However, even though I don't believe they work, I still don't associate with those types of things.

Incidentally this is related to  How does one test the spirits and identify false preachers?.

The power of satan is real, just see the story of Moses in Exodus:

  7:22 And the magicians of Egypt did so with their enchantments: and Pharaoh's heart was hardened,

Which is why we have tests to know the power of the Lord from the power of the devil.


Acording to Orthodox Christianity does God know the future? Acording to Eastern-Orthodoxy, does God know the future in its completeness?
Does he know what I'm going to eat, what I'm going to wear...

I'm reaching the conclusion that Luther's "On the Bondage of the Will"
is really, more or less the same theology as both Orthodox and Catholics.

I'm not saying Orthodoxy doesn't teach free will. But if God knows that I, willingly, would behave like this or that in this or that circumstances, and different in other circumstances, the more or less, it's really the same thing.

The Catholics have a name for this, Thomism and Molinism.
We don't seem to talk much about this, but in the end, I fell we are forced to.

Eastern Orthodox doctrine holds that "the knowledge of God is vision and immediate understanding of everything, both that which exists and that which is possible, the present, the past, and the future."1
This is consistent with Scripture:

Hebrews 4:13

Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.

Psalm 138:16 LXX

My being while it was still unformed Thine eyes did see

This understanding of God's omniscience relates to a certain extent to the Orthodox understanding of time, which generally holds that time as we understand it has no meaning for God.  "Foreknowledge of the future is, strictly speaking, a spiritual vision, because for God the future is the present."2
A marginal note in John of Damascus' (676-749) Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith (I.XIII) relates God's foreknowledge of the future to the Divine attribute of uncircumscription:

That which is comprehended in place or time or apprehension is circumscribed: while that which is contained by none of these is uncircumscribed. Wherefore the Deity alone is uncircumscribed, being without beginning and without end, and containing all things, and in no wise apprehended3. For He alone is incomprehensible and unbounded, within no one’s knowledge and contemplated by Himself alone. But the angel is circumscribed alike in time (for His being had commencement) and in place (but mental space, as we said above) and in apprehension. For they know somehow the nature of each other and have their bounds perfectly defined by the Creator. Bodies in short are circumscribed both in beginning and end, and bodily place and apprehension.

Orthodox theologian Michael Pomazanski (1888-1988) points out that God's foreknowledge of the future in no way violates our free will. "Just as the freedom of our neighbor is not violated by the fact that we see what he does," he writes, "the foreknowledge of God does not violate the free will of creatures.4

1. M. Pomazanski, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology (3rd ed.), p.69
2. Ibid.
3. Gregory Nazianzus, Oration 44
4. Ibid.


What is the Catholic Church's position of a marriage between a menopausal woman and an impotent man? Since the purpose of marriage in Catholicism is for procreation, what is the position of the Catholic Church of a man and a woman being married for the first time when the woman is past childbearing age and the man is impotent because of his age? (The marriage cannot be consummated.)

This one is easy: impotence makes marriage impossible (invalid). To quote the Code of Canon Law,

  Can.  1084 §1. Antecedent [i.e, before the marriage consent is given] and perpetual [i.e., permanent] impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute [i.e., the person is incapable of intercourse with anyone at all] or relative [i.e., the person is incapable of intercourse specifically with his perspective spouse], nullifies marriage by its very nature.

In this case, the reason does not have to do so much with procreation, as with the fact that marriage by its very nature entails at least the possibility of engaging in sexual intercourse. That is, evidently, not possible in the case of impotence, and so neither is marriage.

Therefore, the mere fact that the woman is past childbearing age is not an impediment to marriage—the problem in the case described by the O.P. would be entirely with the man’s impotence.

It should be noted that impotence here is defined as the inability to engage in the sexual act. It is distinct from infertility or sterility, which is the inability to father or conceive children.

The Code of Canon Law specifies that infertility (as opposed to impotence) is not an impediment to marriage. From the same canon:

  §3. Sterility neither prohibits nor nullifies marriage, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 1098. [Can. 1098 essentially says that if important problems such as infertility are concealed from a prospective spouse, that could be grounds for invalidity. However, it is not the infertility as such that renders the marriage invalid.]

It should also be specified that this impediment holds for new marriages (which is why Canon Law specifies that only antecedent impotence can impede marriage). Impotence acquired after the exchange of consent does not affect validity.


What are the important gifts and graces given to Mary to become Mother of the Church? Catholic Church Tradition already embraced the view of Mary's role as Mother of the Church.

It says Saint Augustine and Pope Saint Leo the Great both reflected on the Virgin Mary’s importance in the mystery of Christ.

“In fact the former [St. Augustine] says that Mary is the mother of the members of Christ, because with charity she cooperated in the rebirth of the faithful into the Church, while the latter [St. Leo the Great] says that the birth of the Head is also the birth of the body, thus indicating that Mary is at once Mother of Christ, the Son of God, and mother of the members of his Mystical Body, which is the Church.”

Scripture, the decree says, depicts Mary at the foot of the Cross (cf. Jn 19:25). There she became the Mother of the Church when she “accepted her Son’s testament of love and welcomed all people in the person of the beloved disciple as sons and daughters to be reborn unto life eternal.”
In 1964, the decree says, Pope Paul VI “declared the Blessed Virgin Mary as ‘Mother of the Church, that is to say of all Christian people, the faithful as well as the pastors, who call her the most loving Mother’ and established that ‘the Mother of God should be further honoured and invoked by the entire Christian people by this tenderest of titles’”.

In CCC490, Mary's role as Mother of the Saviour required God to endowed Her with important gifts and special graces.

490 To become the mother of the Savior, Mary "was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role."132 The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as "full of grace".133 In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God's grace.

"The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.135" (135 Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus (1854): DS 2803.)

My question is,in Mary's role as Mother of the Church this would entails a much greater gifts & graces because She will now be a Mother of not only of one child,but a Mother to a billion of believers or the redeemed.In human terms it would be impossible

  "There are an estimated 1.2 billion Roman Catholics in the world, according to Vatican figures. More than 40% of the world's Catholics live in Latin America - but Africa has seen the biggest growth in Catholic congregations in recent years. Mar 14, 2013 - How many Roman Catholics are there in the world?

If Mary was Chosen again, too further Her Role as Mother of the Church meaning a Mother to billions of Catholic not withstanding the teaching the Mary is the Mother of all the Redeemed (including other faith").
What kind of gifts & graces from Catholic Teaching and biblical perspective Mary must possessed in order to perform the magnitude of the holy office?

I am looking for what kind of gifts & graces Mary must possessed in order to  be the Mother of the Church that would attend to the care of each member towards their salvation?

Catholicism and Church Father teaching will be helpful to appreciate the biblical soundness and realities of this important teaching to give light on the Divine Power of Mary bestowed on Her by the Most High.

Mary is universally acknowledge by the Catholic Church as the Mother of the Church, and this year our beloved Pope Francis officially declared the title a  Feast having calendar it's commemoration the next day(Monday) week after Pentecost Celebration.

Mary, Mother of the Church: A New Celebration

Paragraph 6. Mary - Mother of Christ, Mother of the Church

  963 Since the Virgin Mary's role in the mystery of Christ and the Spirit has been treated, it is fitting now to consider her place in the mystery of the Church. "The Virgin Mary . . . is acknowledged and honored as being truly the Mother of God and of the redeemer. . . . She is 'clearly the mother of the members of Christ' . . . since she has by her charity joined in bringing about the birth of believers in the Church, who are members of its head."502 "Mary, Mother of Christ, Mother of the Church."503

  502 LG 53; cf. St. Augustine, De virg. 6:PL 40,399.
  503 Paul VI, Discourse, November 21, 1964.

. . . she is our Mother in the order of grace

  967 By her complete adherence to the Father's will, to his Son's redemptive >work, and to every prompting of the Holy Spirit, the Virgin Mary is the >Church's model of faith and charity. Thus she is a "preeminent and . . . wholly >unique member of the Church"; indeed, she is the "exemplary realization" >(typus)510 of the Church.

  968 Her role in relation to the Church and to all humanity goes still further. >"In a wholly singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope, and >burning charity in the Savior's work of restoring supernatural life to souls. >For this reason she is a mother to us in the order of grace."511

  969 "This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly >from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she >sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of >all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but >by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal >salvation . . . . Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under >the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix."512

The above article of faith & teaching comes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

To answer biblically some important passages why Mary is the Mother of the Church Genesis3:15 provides the starting point. Mary is the Mother of Christ, and Jesus is the 'HEAD OF THE CHURCH".
Jesus was born in the most pure womb of Mary.

The Church, the Mystical Body of Christ is born thru Mary's too, How?
Biblically speaking Catholic Church always point to John19:27 and the Pentecost experienced at the Upper Room.

But since Genesis3:15 passages point to Mary as the Mother of the Savior.

The succeeding verse gives us the reflections how can Mary become our Mother right after the Fall of Adam & Eve.Genesis3:16

  "To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband's power, and he shall have dominion over thee." (Genesis3:16)

Now let's  look at the word "IN SORROW SHALT THOU BRING FORTH CHILDREN"

Mary by Her fullness of grace, knows the Mission of Christ in the Redemption of Mankind, and in Her "sea of bitter sorrows" experienced in Calvary. Mary united the sufferings of Her Immaculate Heart to the Heart of Jesus in redeeming all sinners.

That's why AT THE FOOT OF THE CROSS, the agonizing Jesus seeing that Mary accepted all the redeemed in Her Immaculate Heart said the words "Woman, behold your son". Jesus knew Mary wants to follow further the Will of God not just in Redeeming the sinners but all the way to the Salvation of Souls.

While God prepared a body and preserve the sanctity of Mary's womb a fitting vessel or tabernacle for the Logos/Incarnate.

Mary's Immaculate Heart by Her perfect offering of her Seven Sorrows, Her Immaculate Heart becomes the fiiting vessel for the Holy Spirit to dwells fully.

So, in the words of St.Louis De Montfort if the HEAD of the Church comes from the body of the Blessed Virgin Mary the Church the Mystical Body of Christ must come from the same body too.

  St. Louis De Montfort states " all the elect are in the womb of Mary".

Jesus the Head of the Church was bore in the most pure womb of Mary and all the redeemed was bore by Mary's perfect sorrows in Her Immaculate Heart.

To the question can Mary hear all the prayers of all the Redeemed numbering billions for Catholic alone, the answer can be found in Wisdom1:7.
Mary merited in Her Sorrowful & Immaculate Heart the fullness of the Holy Spirit dwelling more than Overshadowing.
The Sevenfold gifts of the Holy Spirit empower Mary to hear every utterances of every soul;

  Wisdom 1:7 New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)

  "For the spirit of the Lord fills the world,
      is all-embracing, and knows whatever is said."

  Mary having a "glorified body" as envisioned by St.James the Greater in the year 40AD which is called the "Pre-Assumption Apparitions", and the Sevenfold gifts of the Holy Spirit this two Great Gifts enables Mary the Mother of the Church to transcends space & time and hear all the utterances of all believers in the power of the Holy Spirit.

These gifts, graces and unique role of the Blessed Virgin Mary is the pending 5th Dogma of the Catholic Church.

  Mary is the Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix of all graces and Advocate.


Justification of Offertories according to the Regulative Principle of Worship I was in a church today that considers itself to hold strictly to the regulative principle of worship (that which is not explicitly commanded for public worship in Scripture is implicitly condemned) and was puzzled that a choir sang an offertory—sang without the congregation during the taking up of the offering. I am wondering, given their position on worship, what the Biblical justification for this practice might be. Is this practice defensible from Scripture, given the regulative principle?

There are a number of times that the Psalms have a call and response to them (there is one which has "for his love endures forever" as the second half of every verse). The liturgy which is shown in the book of Revelation has a clear chorus which is separate from the congregation (elders who bow down are separate from the great multitude). If it is possible for one subset of the congregation to sing a part of a song, why would it be impossible for one subset to sing the entire song?


What are the qualifications for becoming an eternal family according to LDS teaching? I understand the LDS Church teaches the concept of an eternal family.  I guess the husband and wife have to have been sealed for eternity in a Temple marriage, and, therefore, have to hold Temple recommends.  I'm wondering if their earthly children also have to be Temple-worthy and if there are any other qualifications.

If one child is not Temple-worthy, then I'm wondering if that child is not a part of the eternal family in the afterlife, but perhaps would still have some relationship with his/her siblings and parents and possibly Temple-worthy children.

So, perhaps let us focus in on the specific qualifications for having an eternal family in heaven.

Becoming an eternal family requires living the gospel of Jesus Christ, which includes the following:

Developing faith in Jesus Christ.
Repenting.
Being baptized and receiving the Holy Ghost.
Enduring to the end.

"Enduring to the End" includes temple ordinances, such as the sealing (husband and wife or child to parents), and implies that one would be temple worthy. See the two quotes below, but essentially, the sealing  only remains effective when the parties involved are faithful to the teachings of Jesus Christ. You may find the temple-recommend interview questions helpful for a guide but, unfortunately, it's impossible to make a checklist of the complete teachings of Jesus Christ.

"Family members who accept the Atonement of Jesus Christ and follow His example can be together forever through sacred ordinances performed in God’s holy temples. Jesus gave to Peter the power to have things sealed on earth and sealed in heaven (Matthew 16:19). This same sealing power was restored to Joseph Smith. Mormon’s believe that they can be “sealed” or bound together through His power enabling them to live together in eternity." - http://mormon.org/faq/mormon-families

"In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the word sealing refers to the joining together of a man and a woman and their children for eternity. This sealing can be performed only in a temple by a man who has the priesthood, or the authority from God. According to Latter-day Saint belief, the sealing means these family relationships will endure after death if the individuals live according to the teachings of Jesus Christ."- http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/sealing


What is the Biblical basis that God's sacrifice is sufficient for all of our sins (past included)? I spoke to a friend recently and they said:

  I feel like I've done so much in my past, and that is holding me back from having a relationship with God. How can I know that God will accept me, even after I have done wrong in my past? Can God really look beyond my past?

My question is probably best asked as:

What is the biblical basis to support the position that a person's sins (past included) do not preclude them from being able to receive salvation?

I'm looking for answers that come from Bible passages (purely exegesis). My friend doesn't subscribe to a specific denomination; with that in mind, I'm searching for Biblical answers rather than Catholic or JW doctrinal backed answers, for instance.

The question you are asking here is really the essence and the magnificence of the Gospel itself. The scripture that we're all familiar with John 3:16-17

  16 “For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only
  Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have
  eternal life.

  17 God sent his Son into the world not to judge the
  world, but to save the world through him.

Jesus knew what your friend has done when he died on the cross and died for him just the same.

If you are looking for precedence see these examples:

The Samaritan woman in John 4 - she was not living a moral life yet Jesus takes time to reach out to her.
The Woman caught in adultery in John 8
Peter, Jesus' disciple denying him in John 18 and then Jesus restoring him in John 21
Paul in Acts 8 and 9 - he killed many Christians
The ultimate example comes in Luke 23:34 when Jesus is on the cross and He forgives the very ones crucifying him.

Jesus even talked about this in a few of His parables for example the lost sheep and the prodigal son.


Which encyclical talks about the Mass as a sacrifice? I am interested to know if there are any encyclicals which specifically compare the sacrifice of the Mass with the Temple sacrifices of the old Testament, wherein Jesus himself takes the place of the sacrificial animal.

I know this is standard Catholic Theology, and I know we Catholics talk freely about the sacrifice of the Mass (certainly the words of the liturgy points us in that direction).  But I want to read an actual encyclical where the link between Jesus and the animal sacrificed in the Temple of old is made explicitly clear.  The catechism of course mentions the Mass as a sacrifice, but it doesn't get into the exact details of what corresponds with what.

Chapter 1 of the 22nd Session of the Council of Trent directly states that the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, which is re-presented in the Mass, replaces the Levitical priesthood (that is the sacrifices of the Old Testament in the temple) as well as "various types of sacrifices, during the period of nature, and of the law," so not just the Jewish temple sacrifices, but also, e.g. the sacrifice of Melchizedek is a prefigurement of the Sacrifice of Christ in the Mass.

  CHAPTER I.

  On the institution of the most holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

  Forasmuch as, under the former Testament, according to the testimony
  of the Apostle Paul, there was no perfection, because of the weakness
  of the Levitical priesthood; there was need, God, the Father of
  mercies, so ordaining, that another priest should rise, according to
  the order of Melchisedech, our Lord Jesus Christ, who might
  consummate, and lead to what is perfect, as many as were to be
  sanctified. He, therefore, our God and Lord, though He was about to
  offer Himself once on the altar of the cross unto God the Father, by
  means of his death, there to operate an eternal redemption;
  nevertheless, because that His priesthood was not to be extinguished
  by His death, in the last supper, on the night in which He was
  betrayed,--that He might leave, to His own beloved Spouse the Church,
  a visible sacrifice, such as the nature of man requires, whereby that
  bloody sacrifice, once to be accomplished on the cross, might be
  represented, and the memory thereof remain even unto the end of the
  world, and its salutary virtue be applied to the remission of those
  sins which we daily commit,--declaring Himself constituted a priest
  for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech, He offered up to God
  the Father His own body and blood under the species of bread and wine;
  and, under the symbols of those same things, He delivered (His own
  body and blood) to be received by His apostles, whom He then
  constituted priests of the New Testament; and by those words, Do this
  in commemoration of me, He commanded them and their successors in the
  priesthood, to offer (them); even as the Catholic Church has always
  understood and taught.

  For, having celebrated the ancient Passover, which the multitude of
  the children of Israel immolated in memory of their going out of
  Egypt, He instituted the new Passover, (to wit) Himself to be
  immolated, under visible signs, by the Church through (the ministry
  of) priests, in memory of His own passage from this world unto the
  Father, when by the effusion of His own blood He redeemed us, and
  delivered us from the power of darkness, and translated us into his
  kingdom. And this is indeed that clean oblation, which cannot be
  defiled by any unworthiness, or malice of those that offer (it); which
  the Lord foretold by Malachias was to be offered in every place, clean
  to his name, which was to be great amongst the Gentiles; and which the
  apostle Paul, writing to the Corinthians, has not obscurely indicated,
  when he says, that they who are defiled by the participation of the
  table of devils, cannot be partakers of the table of the Lord; by the
  table, meaning in both places the altar. This, in fine, is that
  oblation which was prefigured by various types of sacrifices, during
  the period of nature, and of the law; in as much as it comprises all
  the good things signified by those sacrifices, as being the
  consummation and perfection of them all.

You can also refer to the Encylical, Mediator Dei of Pope Pius XII, especially at numbers 16-20 (of which the following is a part):

  Thus we observe that when God institutes the Old Law, He makes provision besides for sacred rites, and determines in exact detail the
  rules to be observed by His people in rendering Him the worship He
  ordains. To this end He established various kinds of sacrifice and
  designated the ceremonies with which they were to be offered to Him.
  His enactments on all matters relating to the Ark of the Covenant, the
  Temple and the holy days are minute and clear. He established a
  sacerdotal tribe with its high priest, selected and described the
  vestments with which the sacred ministers were to be clothed, and
  every function in any way pertaining to divine worship.[11] Yet this
  was nothing more than a faint foreshadowing[12] of the worship which
  the High Priest of the New Testament was to render to the Father in
  heaven.
  No sooner, in fact, "is the Word made flesh"[13] than he shows Himself to the world vested with a priestly office, making to the
  Eternal Father an act of submission which will continue
  uninterruptedly as long as He lives: "When He cometh into the world he
  saith. . . 'behold I come . . . to do Thy Will."[14] This act He was
  to consummate admirably in the bloody Sacrifice of the Cross: "It is
  in this will we are sanctified by the oblation of the Body of Jesus
  Christ once."[15] He plans His active life among men with no other
  purpose in view. As a child He is presented to the Lord in the Temple.
  To the Temple He returns as a grown boy, and often afterwards to
  instruct the people and to pray. He fasts for forty days before
  beginning His public ministry. His counsel and example summon all to
  prayer, daily and at night as well. As Teacher of the truth He
  "enlighteneth every man"[16] to the end that mortals may duly
  acknowledge the immortal God, "not withdrawing unto perdition, but
  faithful to the saving of the soul."[17] As Shepherd He watches over
  His flock, leads it to life-giving pasture, lays down a law that none
  shall wander from His side, off the straight path He has pointed out,
  and that all shall lead holy lives imbued with His spirit and moved by
  His active aid. At the Last Supper He celebrates a new Pasch with
  solemn rite and ceremonial, and provides for its continuance through
  the divine institution of the Eucharist. On the morrow, lifted up
  between heaven and earth, He offers the saving sacrifice of His life,
  and pours forth, as it were, from His pierced Heart the sacraments
  destined to impart the treasures of redemption to the souls of men.
  All this He does with but a single aim: the glory of His Father and
  man's ever greater sanctification.

Pope Pius XII draws extensively on the Letter of St. Paul to the Hebrews in discussing the Mass as sacrifice.

I would note that it's somewhat broader than how you put it. Christ doesn't exactly take the place of the animal sacrificed on the altar of the Temple, rather the animal sacrificed on the altar of the temple is a prefigurement of Christ's sacrifice on the Cross (and in the Mass), so His sacrifice is something more.


The uniqueness of Christ's suffering I volunteer at a soup kitchen which is run by a pastor with a Born Again style.  Each meal is preceded by a sermon and attendees are encouraged to come to Jesus.

I had a come-to-Jesus conversation with the pastor.  He summarized his beliefs, including the idea that God gave Jesus to suffer for all of us.  On this I noted that the punishment suffered by Jesus was not unique: 2000 years later, people are still crucifed and suffer even worse forms of individualized cruelty, in what was and remains a very dangerous place.

Since then, in several visits to the soup kitchen, the pastor has avoided making eye contact with me.   I feel certain that I am among the damned.

Question: Is there a name for my heresy?  I'm sure I'm not the first person to come up with the observation that the suffering of Jesus does not make him unique (in that regard).  I imagine that there is a line of Jesuit thinking or something somewhere that already has a name for this particular observation and the consequences that come from it.

The suffering caused by the physical cross and by the soldiers was only a tiny portion of Christ's suffering.  His suffering and death was vicarious, meaning, he suffered in our place, Christ died for our sins.  God poured out upon His Son the wrath that was due to us.  The wrath of God against sin is very great.  Sinners will spend an eternity in Hell for the sins of just one life.  Even one sin is enough to condemn to hell forever.  How much then must be the punishment of Christ who bore the torment for all the sins of his people?

  The LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all, (Isaiah 53:6).

He was made a curse for us, (Galatians 3:13).

The punishment, then, was incomparably the worst punishment anyone has ever endured, and if he had not been God as well as a man He would not have been able to endure it.

When He was suffering on the cross there was darkness for the space of three hours.  The intimation is that even if we had been there as a bystander we would not have been able to see the depth of his suffering.  It would have been pointless to stand and watch him suffer because you would not have been able to see it: so God gave a curtain of darkness to demonstrate the pointlessness of trying to see all his suffering.

His sufferings of mind are described in Psalm 69, which is clearly associated with the cross in verse 21, "in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink".


How do those who believe in salvation by grace, and in works being the fruit of salvation, explain Galatians 6:8-9? My understanding of the relationship between works and salvation is that works are the inevitable fruit of salvation by grace (1 John 3:6, Matthew 7:16-18).  And my understanding of perseverance is that the genuinely saved will persevere (Philippians 1:6, 1 John 2:19).

However, this passage from Galatians does not seem to fit cleanly with my understanding:

  Galatians 6:8-9 (NASB)
  8 For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. 9 Let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we will reap if we do not grow weary.

Particularly in verse 9, Paul seems to be telling the Galatians to keep doing good in order to reap eternal life.  Furthermore, it sounds like this "doing good" falls under human responsibility, or why would Paul need to admonish the Galatians to do so?  That sounds a lot like works salvation.

How do those with understandings similar to mine explain/interpret this verse?  How does the context shed light on this passage?

I think the key thing here is understanding what it means to "sow to flesh" and "sow to the Spirit".

The difference (referencing Bob Utley's commentary) is the key difference between the two basic approaches to being right with God: our own effort, or God's free grace.

The former (sowing to flesh) refers to trying to be right by God by trying to work for it.  The latter (sowing to the Spirit) refers to trying to be right by God through his free grace.

In other words, Paul is strongly warning the Galatians to not attempt to be right with God through their own effort.

In verse 9, he goes on to encourage the Galatians to continue in their works.  We are not saved by our works, but saved unto works.  You see this same thing in Ephesians 2:8-10:

  For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your
  own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no
  one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus
  for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in
  them.

So the interpretation here should be a strict admonition to not mock God by attempting to hold up your good works as a sign of your deserving eternal life, but rather that you would abandon your good works as an effort towards salvation, and instead, embrace good works gladly as a privilege given to those who have ceased their striving to be justified through those same good works.


What is the basis for why certain musical beats are deemed by some to be unchristian or immoral? I have encountered people in the past that have asserted that certain musical rhythms or beats are inherently immoral or sinful.

It seems to follow, then, that even if the words of Scriptures themselves are put to music with the wrong beat, the result is somehow still immoral.

What is the particular basis or argument for this belief?  Is there any biblical basis for this?  Did the Psalms follow a certain beat pattern that could be the basis for this thinking?

As I've read in several books on worship (see below), the basis for this belief goes back to the roots of various kinds of music in African tribal music. The reasoning goes that since the tribal music was demonic (by intention), therefore its successors must have a demonic back-beat.

However, I once read a senior thesis by a student at New St. Andrews College, in Moscow, Idaho, USA, that had a powerful argument against this line of reasoning. Alas, I do not have access to the thesis. She argued against the line of reasoning on various biblical bases.

We have virtually no idea how the Psalms were originally sung. We certainly do not have any original tunes, and we have very little idea of instrumentation.  Again, that is simply something I have read in books (a few mentioned below).

On a more general worship/music note, I've found the book All God's Children and Blue Suede Shoes, by Ken Myers, to be extraordinarily helpful, as well as Why Johnny Can't Sing Hymns, by T. David Gordon, and Reaching Out Without Dumbing Down, by Marva Dawn.


How do Trinitarians explain the Father granting life to the Son (John 5:26)? For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. (John 5:26, NIV)

How do trinitarians explain the fact that the Father has granted life to the Son?

The "begetting" here is understood in an eternal sense, and is not a matter of being made or created. The creeds phrase it as eternally begetting (fathering), or pretemporal begetting, or an eternal proceeding from. And they are explicit in that it is not a matter of being made or created.

From the Athanasian Creed,

  The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten.

And,

  So there is One Father, not Three Fathers; one Son, not Three Sons; One Holy Ghost, not Three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore or after Other, None is greater or less than Another, but the whole Three Persons are Co-eternal together, and Co-equal.

And from the Nicene Creed,

  And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made.

The Son proceeds from The Father and is therefore of the same eternal substance. This differs from created entities, which are different in "substance" from their creator. The Father is the eternal cause of the Son; but the Son is not created or a distinct substance from the Father. The Father and the Son, with the Holy Spirit, are one in being.


What does the Catholic Church mean by "beatific vision"? Is it similar to St Thomas of Aquinas's description?

(Obviously, by 'description', I mean description of what it entails...not what God looks like!)

The doctrine of the beatific vision stems from the scholastic movement of the 14th century, particularly St. Thomas Aquinas. Thomas Aquinas defined the beatific vision as the human being's "final end" in which one attains to a perfect happiness. Thomas reasons that one is perfectly happy only when all one's desires are perfectly satisfied, to the degree that happiness could not increase and could not be lost.

Man is not perfectly happy, so long as something remains for him to
desire and seek. (STh I–II)

In AD 1336, Pope Benedict XII set in stone the definition of eternal face to face worship (a.k.a. Beatific Vision):

By virtue of our apostolic authority, we define the following: According to
the general disposition of God, the souls of all the saints . . . and other
faithful who died after receiving Christ's holy Baptism (provided they
were not in need of purification when they died, . . . or, if they then did
need or will need some purification, when they have been purified after
death, . . .) already before they take up their bodies again and before the
general judgment - and this since the Ascension of our Lord and Savior
Jesus Christ into heaven - have been, are and will be in heaven, in the
heavenly Kingdom and celestial paradise with Christ, joined to the
company of the holy angels. Since the Passion and death of our Lord
Jesus Christ, these souls have seen and do see the divine essence with
an intuitive vision, and even face to face, without the mediation of any
creature.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines in paragraph 1028 the Beatific Vision as:

Because of his transcendence, God cannot be seen as he is, unless he
himself opens up his mystery to man's immediate contemplation and
gives him the capacity for it. The Church calls this contemplation of God
in his heavenly glory "the beatific vision":
How great will your glory and happiness be, to be allowed to see God,
to be honored with sharing the joy of salvation and eternal light with
Christ your Lord and God, . . . to delight in the joy of immortality in the
Kingdom of heaven with the righteous and God's friends.  (St.
Cyprian)


Is adultery grounds for excommunication or other discipline in a Jehovah's Witness Church? I think the title says it all.  Are there rules/guidelines for Church Discipline for members of the Church that are blatantly involved in adultery?

Specifically, I'm referring to well-known, unabashed involvement, not a one-time or short-term slip up.  Understanding that we are all human and all able to fall into temptation, I am not referring to a situation where a person falls into sin, and then repents.  I'm talking about openly unashamed sinful behavior.

For example, a member becomes involved with a married man, becomes pregnant with his child, then works actively to break up the marriage, with no sign of a repentant spirit.

Without focusing on what we think ought to happen, I'm looking for a defined policy or set of guidelines, similar to the Catholic guidelines, or those found in other denominations?

A simple answer to a simple question:

  Is adultery grounds for excommunication or other discipline ...? ... I'm
  talking about openly unashamed sinful behaviour.

The answer is "Yes".

...and its called "disfellowshiping" instead of "excommunication".

Slightly extended...

By comments under your question and the obvious fact that this is a personal situation of yours that prompts you to ask, there are many circumstances which people run from that sort of discipline, and do seem to evade it. There are many circumstances where contending parties have different accusations and versions of a story. Obviously there is no divine revelation to reveal the true nature of what happened, so there is the obvious human limitations that keep things from getting solved.

With that in mind, many people successfully (seem to) evade discipline, but there is the simple fact that its not humans they are disobeying, or running from. Here is the more important thing:

Galatians 6:7 [Amplified Bible]:

  7 Do not be deceived and deluded and misled; God will not allow
  Himself to be sneered at (scorned, disdained, or mocked [a]by mere
  pretensions or professions, or by His precepts being set aside.) [He
  inevitably deludes himself who attempts to delude God.] For whatever a
  man sows, that and [b]that only is what he will reap.

Compare to Proverbs 6:27-29:

  28 Can one go upon hot coals and his feet not be burned?

  29 So he who cohabits with his neighbor’s wife [will be tortured with
  evil consequences and just retribution]; he who touches her shall not
  be innocent or go unpunished.

Marriage is God's arrangement, and typically judged by God himself. Disfellowshipping is the least of one's fears when they are blatant and unrepentant in their course.


What is the theological background of the WWJD movement? What Would Jesus Do? The question is a popular meme, and I guess you could call it a youth movement what with all the bracelets and such.

What is the theological background of the WWJD movement? Which doctrines are used to argue that WWJD? is an important question to ask oneself?

There are many scriptures which say we ought to do as Jesus Christ did:

John 13:15 (KJV)
15 For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.
1 Peter 2:21 (KJV)
21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
1 John 2:6 (KJV)
6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

But that doesn't necessarily mean that those passages are what actually spawned the movement. Wikipedia has details on the origin of WWJD.


What was the miracle of Blessed Luigi and Maria Beltrame Quattrocch? Luigi and Maria Beltrame Quattrocch were beatified by Pope John Paul II.  They were the first married couple to be beatified.  They lived exemplary lives in Fascist Italy during WWII; but I can't find any information regarding a miracle being attributed to them.  For canonization, there must be demonstration of two miracles, one of which must be posthumous.  I thought demonstration of one miracle was required for beatification.  However, I may be mistaken about that detail.

That took some digging, but I found it (at the National Catholic Reporter no less)

  A miracle — the prerequisite to any beatification — is attributed to the couple. It involves the cure of a young man suffering from a severe circulatory disorder. He is now a 35-year-old neurosurgeon in Milan.

http://natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2001d/122801/122801a.htm

A miracle is not necessary for beatification if they're martyred, but the couple wasn't Martyred.

There is another couple who has recently been beatified, St. Therese of Lisieux's parents
Bl. Louis Martin and Bl. Marie-Azélie Guérin.  Apparently in cases of Married Blesseds, which there have not been many, the faithful can pray for their intercession for a join miracle, that's pretty neat.


What passages support that God once walked the earth as a man? I thought that God once walked on the earth as we do now, but I can't find that in the bible, offhand.

I thought that Joseph Smith taught that he walked with us and was once a man.  What bible verses did he use to show this?

Where does that teaching come from?

I'm not familiar with Mormon doctrine, so I'm not sure where you're going with your line of questioning, but I'll try to answer the two questions you posed.

Is God Eternal?

The following scriptures describe God as eternal.

  Deuteronomy 33:27 The eternal God is thy refuge, and underneath are
  the everlasting arms: and he shall thrust out the enemy from before
  thee; and shall say, Destroy them.

  I Timothy 1:17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the
  only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Did God Walk on the Earth?

In the book of Genesis, God came and walked with Adam in the cool of the day.

  Genesis 3:8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the
  garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves
  from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.

In Exodus God revealed Himself to Moses as a man.

  Exodus 33:22-23 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by,
  that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with
  my hand while I pass by: And I will take away mine hand, and thou
  shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.


Does the Catholic Church officially claim that the Bible is insufficient without tradition? I read this quote at the Christian Research Institute's site:

  One, the fact that Scripture, without tradition, is said to be “God-breathed” (theopnuestos) and thus by it believers are “competent, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, emphasis added) supports the doctrine of sola Scriptura. This flies in the face of the Catholic claim that the Bible is formally insufficient without the
  aid of tradition.

Does the Catholic Church officially claim anywhere that the Bible is insufficient without tradition?

Yes she (Catholic Church) does.  I've copied the pertinent parts from the previous poster's quotes to show this.

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

While it may or may not be true that her Tradition sources to apostles, since after all, the Orthodox say the same thing, yet the two groups contradict at a number of well known Tradition points, the whole point in answering your question is for them, Scripture alone as regards all things necessary for salvation, is incomplete.  They are quite clear and open about this.  Why someone would think otherwise is beyond the scope.

PS From the authentic Catholic mouth 1965:

  Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed.

DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON DIVINE REVELATION DEI VERBUM

Can't be any clearer than that.


Why was Ham cursed for seeing his father naked? In Genesis 9:22-25, Ham's son Canaan was cursed because Ham saw his father (Noah) naked. The punishment seems excessive indicating there is more to the passage than meets the eye.
What did Ham do to cause Noah to curse his son, Canaan?

In the Old Testament, "uncovering the nakedness of your father" was a euphemism that was used for having relations with his wife.

The likely explanation for this passage, based on my own study and consulting numerous commentaries of Bible scholars, is that, while Noah was drunk and unaware of what was going on around him, Ham entered his father's tent and had relations with his mother. Canaan was likely the result of that union, which explains why he was the target of the curse.

This explanation is not definitive, but it is the one that makes the most sense based on my study of the passage and the cultural underpinnings of the Old Testament.


What issues do Catholics representing God in fiction historically face? I'm currently running a Role-playing game which is nearing its fourth year of play and  is coming to a close.  The end of the campaign will involve the passing away of this world and the prophesied metaphysical unification of the new earth with aspects of the old heaven, which will then also have passed away.  After a short period of campaign resolution, the game will end, so I don't need to be able to do this for very long, but I will almost certainly have to run direct dialouge with God or, at a minimum, deal with eschatological logistics.  I want to do this is a respectful and sacred way, and I am worried about being up to the task.

What issues have been brought up by other Roman Catholics in the past as integral to the act of representing God and/or the end times in a fictional work?

Starting off with the Church teaching on images

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

  CCC 2132 The Christian veneration of images is not contrary
  to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, "the honor
  rendered to an image passes to its prototype," and "whoever venerates
  an image venerates the person portrayed in it."1 The honor
  paid to sacred images is a "respectful veneration," not the adoration
  due to God alone:

  Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered
  as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading
  us on to God incarnate. The movement toward the image does not
  terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it
  is.2

  1. St. Basil, De Spiritu Sancto 18,45:PG 32,149C; Council of
  Nicaea II: DS 601; cf. Council of Trent: DS 1821-1825; Vatican Council
  II: SC 126; LG 67.
  2. St. Thomas Aquinas, STh II-II,81,3 ad 3.

Therefore making of images which Christians may venerate is not contrary to God's commandments, and is in accordance with Church Tradition and practice from the earliest times3.

3. cf. Veneration of Images | New Advent.

In the New Advent articles, we gather that in the first centuries of Christianity, there are no pictures of the Crucifixion except the mock-crucifix scratched by some pagan soldier in the Palatine barracks.

Therefore a picture of the crucifixion can be made to mock in one case and in another for  veneration. Also the article quotes Catholic teaching that "we do not pray to relics or images, for they can neither see nor hear nor help us."

Therefore answering

What issues have been brought up by other Roman Catholics in the past as integral to the act of representing God and/or the end times in a fictional work?

In conclusion, the representation is to be made in a way that is in obedience to God's commandments [the first and the second], in accordance with Church tradition and practice, and also done tastefully and in a way that does not offend not only Catholic, but also Christian sensibility4 as well.

4. cf. Jesus Christ Superstar - an utter blasphemy!!! | The personal blog of Rev Brian McClung, Minister of Newtownabbey Free Presbyterian Church & Administrator of Newtownabbey Independent Christian School.

The Last Judgement, a mighty composition, painted by Michelangelo between 1536 and 1541, in the Sistine Chapel.


Why didn't the KJV translators transliterate יהוה? Did the translators of the KJV make any comments or notes that explained the basis for their decision not to transliterate each occurrence of the Tetragrammaton into English, rather than translating it as all-caps "LORD"?

I couldn't find anywhere that any KJV translators spoke about their decision to translate the Tetragrammaton as "Lord." Not the preface, not the marginal notes, and I couldn't find any quotes from any of them on it (I wasn't too thorough in my search on the last one, so they could be out there somewhere).

The KJV draws significantly from Tyndale's earlier translation, and he too used "LORD" instead of a transliteration (except in some instances, where it was "Jehovah," as it would later be in a few instances in the KJV). He did not, as far as I could see, explain why he made this choice.

In the Septuagint, the Tetragrammaton becomes "kyrios," which means "lord" or "sir" or "master." This seems to be influenced by Jews' aversion to pronouncing the Divine Name out of deference to the Third Commandment. In synagogues today and dating back to ancient times, Jews use "Adonai," meaning "lord," which itself became "kyrios" in the Septuagint. In the New Testament, when quoting Old Testament verses which include the Tetragrammaton, it is "kyrios," following the Septuagint.

The Latin Vulgate follows the Jewish practice of replacing the Divine Name with "Adonai." In Wycliffe's English Bible, preceding Tyndale and the KJV, he rendered the Tetragrammaton "Adonai."

Around the same time as Tyndale, Luther translated the Bible into German and rendered the Tetragrammaton "Herr," meaning "lord" or "sir."

So although we don't have direct evidence of the translators' reasons via quotations, we do know that throughout history, and even in the New Testament itself, there has been conflation between the Tetragrammaton and the word "lord." At the very least, the KJV was a part of that historical trend.


Are the Disciples of Christ trinitarian? Are the Disciples of Christ trinitarian?

The identity statement from their website is:

  We are Disciples of Christ, a movement for wholeness in a fragmented world. As part of the one body of Christ we welcome all to the Lord’s Table as God has welcomed us.

I cannot find any references to a trinitarian understanding of the Christian God on their website. I assume this is intentional, in line with another statement of theirs:

  we don’t require acceptance of any formal creed for membership in the church

It appears that they are not taking a stance. This might make them non-trinitarian in the eyes of many, though I would not be surprised if members instead regard their own position as non-committal or members simply differ in opinion. Instead of speculating further, I am hereby asking the community for knowledge or opinions, official or unofficial.

As I recall from my time (decades ago) as an ordained and licensed Disciple of Christ minister, anyone who had publicly professed that Jesus was their Savior and Lord was freely received--with no dogmatic strings attached--into fellowship with any Disciple's of Christ assembly.

What if they believed in the Trinity?

  "Welcome! Come worship with us and feast at the Lord's Table!"

What if they did not believe in the Trinity?

  "Welcome! Come worship with us and feast at the Lord's Table!"

Why? Because asking someone to confirm their personal believe in the Trinity was a "test of faith". Such tests aren't necessary to one's salvation.

In brief: not every Disciple of Christ is a Trinitarian, nor is every Trinitarian a "disciple" of Christ.