How could Jesus get followers so easily? Reading how Jesus called his disciples, I am always perplexed at how they just leave everything and start following him. An example passage:

  Matthew 4:18-22 (ESV)
   18 While walking by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon (who is called Peter) and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea, for they were fishermen. 19And he said to them, "Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men." 20Immediately they left their nets and followed him. 21And going on from there he saw two other brothers, James the son of Zebedee and John his brother, in the boat with Zebedee their father, mending their nets, and he called them. 22Immediately they left the boat and their father and followed him.

It's really amazing that anyone in their right minds would act like that. Now, one might think that Jesus does some miracles that just aren't mentioned. However, his first sign was at Cana and he already had disciples at that time.

  John 2:11 (ESV)
   11This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory. And his disciples believed in him.

Why were the disciples so eager to start following Jesus?

Luke 5 (CEV) tells a little more of the story:

One day Jesus was standing beside Lake Gennesaret (Galilee) when the crowd pressed in around him to hear God’s word. Jesus saw two boats sitting by the lake. The fishermen had gone ashore and were washing their nets. Jesus boarded one of the boats, the one that belonged to Simon, then asked him to row out a little distance from the shore. Jesus sat down and taught the crowds from the boat. When he finished speaking to the crowds, he said to Simon, “Row out farther, into the deep water, and drop your nets for a catch.”
Simon replied, “Master, we’ve worked hard all night and caught nothing. But because you say so, I’ll drop the nets.”
So they dropped the nets and their catch was so huge that their nets were splitting. They signaled for their partners in the other boat to come and help them. They filled both boats so full that they were about to sink. When Simon Peter saw the catch, he fell at Jesus’ knees and said, “Leave me, Lord, for I’m a sinner!” Peter and those with him were overcome with amazement because of the number of fish they caught. James and John, Zebedee’s sons, were Simon’s partners and they were amazed too.
Jesus said to Simon, “Don’t be afraid. From now on, you will be fishing for people.” As soon as they brought the boats to the shore, they left everything and followed Jesus.

So, there was a miracle.
(One explanation for the apparent contradiction with John is that the disciples encountered Jesus on more than one occasion. At the wedding the disciples believed, and at the lake they started to follow)


Why did Jesus say the Son of Man was Lord over the Sabbath because the Sabbath was made for man? Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.” (NIV Mark 2:27-28)

There seems to be a connection with the Sabbath being made for 'any man' and from this proposition, 'the Son of Man' , that is the second Adam, has all the more right to change the Sabbath, or at least at a minimum use it as it was intended to the first Adam, if he so chooses.

I sense an argument here but can't immediately find the words for it.  Has anyone heard of a good explanation? I looked up a couple commentaries but nothing seemed to be that good at all.

I think you are getting hung up on Son of Man being a divine title. We take it as that, but it doesn't mean that fundamentally. It means something along the lines of the Ideal Man, the Best Man, the Representitive Man. It doesn't imply divinity.

Jesus' point then is that the Sabbath was created for the good of people. That's how the CEV translates it. JB Phillips translates it "for the sake of man". In other words the purpose of Man is not to keep the Sabbath - the purpose of the Sabbath is to keep Man operating as (s)he should.

Because of this, Jesus is saying, if the rules of the Sabbath are actually getting in the way of people doing the right thing, then they should be changed and Man has the power to do that. It should of course be noted that the precise details of what was permitted on the Sabbath were not direct commands of God; the violation was only of the current interpretation of what constituted Sabbath-breaking.


Why do the faithful have to say "And with your spirit " in the Catholic Mass? In the Catholic Holy Mass (Ordinary Form of the Mass in the Latin rite), the prayer  for peace is said more than once . But, when the priest says "Peace be with you"the faithful respond by saying "And with your spirit ", rather than saying "And with you". I wish to know  why  the faithful are required to pray for peace `with the spirit of the celebrant'.

The simple answer is that "thy spirit" is a Hebraism for "you" (to be specific in this case, "you," but more 'endearing,' 'elevated,' or 'prayerful;' cf. Lk. 1:46). St. Paul uses this blessing in 2 Timthy 4:22: "The Lord Jesus Christ be with thy spirit..."
This was almost certainly imported into, or was always part of, the Roman liturgy very early, and it has remained in it ever since.
Indeed, it appears that all the apostolic Liturgies involve this Hebraism, explainable only by the primitive apolostic foundation each of the Liturgies have.
For example, the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, the most popular Liturgy in the East, one hears the priest say, "Peace be with you all," and the deacon responding, "And with thy spirit." The Liturgy of St. Mark (Alexandrian Liturgy) also has this, as does St. James' (Antiochian) Liturgy.
As to why the laity (or the deacon on their behalf) are to respond to the blessing of the priest, the theological reason is that at Mass, there is to be kept a close unity of offerer and the others who offer by him, the Eucharist as well as the sacrifice of their praise and prayers.
For example, in many Liturgies we find this common prayer or ones very similar:
Liturgy of St. Thomas/Malankra/Indian Rite

Priest. Pray, brethren, that our sacrifice may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father.
Deacon. May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for the praise and glory of his name for our good, and the good of his Church.

Roman Liturgy of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass

Priest. Pray, brethren,  that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father.
Deacon. May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for the praise and glory of  his name, for our good and the good of  all his holy Church.

The laity, via the Deacon (or servant), are to be always united and prayerfully attentive to the priest's intercessory prayer and offering of the Eucharist. That is why when blessed, they return the blessing, as it were: "The Lord be with you: and with thy spirit [also]!" eagerly awaiting what comes next. It involves the laity in the Sacrifice they are otherwise unable to offer themselves, via union with the priest who offers.


How do Mormons interpret Psalm 110:1 and Matthew 22:41-45? Based on the answer to this other question, Mormons believe that Jesus and Jehovah in the Old Testament are one and same person.

Also my understanding is that, based on information such as the answers to this question, that Mormons do not believe in Trinity.

Because of this I wanted to ask about Psalm 110:1 which was referred to by Jesus in Matthew 22:41-45.

I have below listed Psalm 110:1 according to some translations that use the name Jehovah in that passage:

American Standard Version:

  Jehovah saith unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, Until I make
  thine enemies thy footstool.

Darby Translation:

  Jehovah said unto my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I put thine
  enemies [as] footstool of thy feet.

Living Bible:

  Jehovah said to my Lord the Messiah, “Rule as my regent—I will subdue
  your enemies and make them bow low before you.”

Young's Literal Translation:

  A Psalm of David. The affirmation of Jehovah to my Lord: `Sit at My
  right hand, Till I make thine enemies thy footstool.'

Jesus referred to this scripture when speaking with the Pharisees in Matthew 22:41-45 (The Living Bible):

  41 Then, surrounded by the Pharisees, he asked them a question: 42 “What about the Messiah? Whose son is he?” “The son of David,” they replied. 43 “Then why does David, speaking under the
  inspiration of the Holy Spirit, call him ‘Lord’?” Jesus asked. “For
  David said, 44 ‘God said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand until I
  put your enemies beneath your feet.’ 45 Since David called him
  ‘Lord,’ how can he be merely his son?”

According to some denominations, Jesus in above question meant that he was the "Lord" that God (or Jehovah, according to above translations) spoke to in verse 44.

How do Mormons interpret these passages, since they believe that Jesus was the same as Jehovah in the Old Testament?

Before going on, note Article of Faith 8 (doesn't necessarily apply to this verse just keep in mind when getting a Mormon's interpretation of a Bible verse):

  We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

From Psalms 110:1 (KJV on LDS site)

  The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Besides Matthew 22:41-45 this Psalm is also referenced in Acts 2:32-36 and Hebrews 1:13.

The LDS believe that LORD (uppercase) is used in place of printing Jehovah, who we believe to be Jesus Christ, during the translation process. 1,2

Lord (in lowercase) refers to a heavenly ruler but is not a substitute for the name Jehovah. 2

There are at least 3 instances when LORD applies to Heavenly Father, not Jesus Christ and this verse is one of them. 2 ftnt 3 So the verse is really saying:

  The LORD [Heavenly Father] said unto my Lord [Adona/pre-incarnate Son], Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

So in Matthew Jesus is showing that he understands 'the LORD' refers to Heavenly Father and 'my Lord' refers to the Son of God and Messiah. 3

Acts 2:36 also backs this up

  Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

1 The Living Christ

2 2002 Ensign article

footnote 3:

  In at least three Old Testament passages it appears that LORD applies to Heavenly Father, not Jesus Christ: Ps. 110:1; Ps. 2:7; Isa. 53:10

3 Names of God in OT article- highly recommend for a much better in-depth explanation, you can start half way down where it talks specifically about Psalm 110

Abinadi on the Father and Son mentions the Acts2:36 reference to the Psalm


Are all who are saved, saved equally? If two people are saved, are they "equally saved?" I don't doubt that both people are completely forgiven, but is it possible for one Christian to be more revered by God than another Christian? Is being saved a simple yes/no kind of thing or are there tiers to it?

This question is not to be confused with a question about being part of an elect or pre-destination.

Well, many verses in the Bible don't refer to any kind of ranking, so I would think not. All of the verses in the famous Roman Road apply to everyone and one even makes it clear that Jews and Gentiles are equivalent.

  Romans 10:13 (NLT)
  12 Jew and Gentile are the same in this respect. They have the same Lord, who gives generously to all who call on him. 13 For “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Hence, even though there ARE differing levels of rewards (see here), everyone is equally saved.


Are LDS church manuals considered to be the words of God? In some manuals I've read in the intro that it is official church doctrine, and in some books written by apostles (like Miracle of Forgiveness) it says it's not official church doctrine. Anyway, if a manual (not just any lds book) doesn't specifically say that, are all manuals considered 100% official church doctrine anyway? Seminary? Institute? Everything? And does that mean they're considered to be the words of the apostles, which would mean they are the words of Christ?

E.g. I have heard some (Beginning Phase, Conclusion) of the history of making Preach My Gospel, the manual for missionary work.

  President Boyd K. Packer said Preach My Gospel was “designed beyond the veil and put together here.”

From that (along with other spiritual experiences) I can tell it's the word of God, but in the First Presidency Message it doesn't specifically say that. I'm a little lazy to be researching the making of every manual.

Sorry, this is probably a dumb question that I could figure out by common sense, but it would be nice to have references to back it up.

Aside, Maybe I have this question because I don't fully understand the difference between canonized scripture and the word of God in general (I haven't looked into that very deeply)?

No, church manuals are not considered 100% church doctrine, if you define doctrine to mean the word of God. They are very inspired teachings and they contain what is being taught in the church, because they are used to teach. They are well considered, but they might not be fully free of personal opinions or even errors.

In October 2012 the LDS apostle Neil L. Andersen gave a definition of what constitutes doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in a talk at General Conference:

  A few question their faith when they find a statement made by a Church leader decades ago that seems incongruent with our doctrine. There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find.

(Emphasis added.) Similarly, apostle M. Russell Ballard explains what the voice of the Lord is in a General Conference talk in October 2014:

  [...] when the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve speak with a united voice, it is the voice of the Lord for that time. The Lord reminds us, ‘Whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same’ [D&C 1:38].

(Emphasis added.) Therefore, even a talk from the president of the Church does not necessarily constitute doctrine. However, the official canon of scripture (Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price) and all things that have been given by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles are considered doctrine. This includes The Living Christ and The Family: A Proclamation to the World. These things make up doctrine and are unchangeable eternal principles for the Church membership.

The apostles and prophets of the LDS Church are not considered infallible by its members. However, whenever a person speaks the words that are given him through the Holy Ghost, then this can be considered the word of the Lord and scripture according to D&C 68:4:

  And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.

This can happen during a general conference talk as well as during a priesthood blessing or just a missionary teaching someone.

Regarding Preach My Gospel: It's a very uplifting and inspiring manual about missionary work. But again, it is not considered scripture, even though it might be very close to it. Just as other Church manuals it is subject to change and improvements.


Why is Jesus named the Prince of Peace instead of the King of Peace? In Isaiah 9:6, the child to be born will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

  For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government
  shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful
  Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.  Isaiah
  9:6 ESV

A prince is one who will one day be king, but does not currently hold that position.  Why doesn't Isaiah say that Jesus will be the King of Peace?

Before it meant the son of a king, or someone who was not yet king, the original sense of the word 'prince' was someone of the highest rank.  (It's related to the word 'principal'.)

The Hebrew word שָׂר used in the original seems to have the same idea in it.


Is saying "Oh My God" really using God's name in vain? It's become habitual for me to say "Oh my God" in a situation where I am shocked or surprised, as I'm sure it's become for a lot of people.

I said "Oh My God" in the presence of a friend of mine once, a long time ago, and he said, "Don't use God's name in vain" or "Don't use the Lord's name in vain." People have said this to me very often since then.

This intrigued me, so I was just wondering...does the phrase "Oh my God" really use God's name in vain?

According to the definition of "in vain", I'd say yes, it is in vain.

  in vain,
  a. without effect or avail; to no purpose: to apologize in
  vain.
  b. in an improper or irreverent manner: to take God's name in
  vain.

While it may not be directly insulting or condemning God in any way, I would say that "Oh my God" is not using his name in a reverent manner, specifically one that may be bringing him glory.

With regards to the habit, my wife had the same habit.  After realizing that it was taking his name in vain, she was able to quickly get over it.  While "Oh my gosh" has the same meaning (most likely in your case), it does remove the risk of trivializing God.  Maybe once you accept that it is taking God's name in vain, you'll be able to quickly get over your habit.  (I wouldn't expect anyone to get over it immediately unless you pray for God's help and he breaks it at once.)


Historical figures mentioned in the Bible that skeptics doubted existed but were later confirmed by archaeology In the past I've read about skeptics thinking that certain figures that the Bible lists as having historically existed didn't actually exist, but then later archaeology confirmed that they did.  Does anyone know some good examples of these?

Bible critics questioned the existence of Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea who handed Jesus over to be impaled. (Matthew 27:1-26) Evidence that Pilate was once ruler of Judea is etched on a stone discovered at the Mediterranean seaport city of Caesarea in 1961.

Inscribed on the stone is:

  Pontius Pilatus, Prefect of Judea, has dedicated to the people of Caesarea a temple in honor of Tiberius.”

more  info


How does Catholicism contradict Brene Brown? (Lev 19:18) Practical implications? My background: 4 years undergraduate in Catholic university including 3 unit Theology course on sex, love and marriage with M Scott Peck readings. Recently been following Brene Brown who says 'We can only love others as much as we love ourselves'. Example: If a socially struggling parent wants to love a socially struggling child, then the parent needs to love himself/herself by accepting his/her social struggles.

Question 1: Which part of my understanding or assumptions below is wrong, and why?

It's an alternative interpretation to Love your neighbor as yourself (Lev 19:18).
The usual interpretation is

  Humans generally don't have difficulties loving themselves, and their task is to love others to the level they love themselves. (2)

Brene Brown discovers

  Humans love others almost as much as themselves. Thus, they must love themselves more to love others more. (3)

Brene Brown calls self-love 'vulnerability' and loving others 'empathy'. [Edit: Alternatively, 'empathy' is one way to love others. I guess others would be generousity, hard work, etc]
Brene Brown says in order to have more empathy we need to have more vulnerability.
M Scott Peck does not say anything similar.
There is something in Catholic teaching that contradicts what Brene Brown said. --> If this is true, please cite from the Bible or Catholic teaching.
The Catholic Church agrees with (2) and disagrees with (3).

Question 2: (If there is a disagreement) What specifically is the practical implication, if any?

I really don't see how Brene Brown's interpretation of Lev 19:18 might make one a worse Catholic. For example, Headspace on Generousity has a similar idea and it seems to complement the Prayer for Generousity. But if Headspace and Brene Brown are so dangerously contradicting the Catholic faith, I hope to know right away so I can be unbrainwashed.

Original Post, founded on "God is Love"

I'm not Catholic and so won't be speaking from a Catholic standpoint, but I will try to ground my statements in Scripture and hopefully you will find that sufficient.

Love is a virtue, not a quantity

The premise of your question is 'love is a quantity' and can therefore be given more to some and less to others. I disagree. God is Love.  In other words, everything God does and is, is loving and is the perfect example of what love is.

Love is not a quantity.  Love is a virtue--a character trait--and as such is stronger in those who practice it and weaker in those who don't. For more on Love as a virtue, see James KA Smith, particularly You Are What You Love and Desiring the Kingdom (he also has books out by the same names), as well as anything by St. Augustine (particularly his Confessions).

What people often mean when they talk about loving someone or something more than another, is that they are acting more loving towards someone than towards someone else.   But let's assume a person has perfected the virtue of Love, and they truly and perfectly love two people (a spouse and a child, for instance); their actions towards those two people will often be different.

At times, they will love their child by putting their spouse's needs
first, and at other times they will love their spouse by putting
their child's needs first. There are many examples like this. In
these examples, it may seem to an outsider that they love their
spouse "more than" their child, or vice versa, but that is not true.
They love them both truly and perfectly.

Now to address your specific questions. I the statement 'We can only love others as much as we love ourselves' treats love as a quantity.  I would reword it like this, 'We love others, ourselves, and our God to the degree that we have practiced the virtue of Love, and to the degree that we have allowed God's love to overcome us' (for more on God's love overcoming us, see all of St. John's letters, especially 1 John, particularly 1 John 4:19)

  Question 1: Which part of my understanding or assumptions below is
  wrong, and why?

  It's an alternative interpretation to Love your neighbor as yourself (Lev 19:18).

Yes, it is a competing statement to the Shema and Jesus's interpretation of the Shema, where He famously combines Deut 6:4-5 with Lev 19:18. To Jesus, loving God was synonymous with loving others, and vice versa, again because God is Love.

  Humans generally don't have difficulties loving themselves, and their task is to love others to the level they love themselves.

Humans often have a difficult time loving anything, including themselves. Only in and through God can we love anything, including ourselves, again because God is Love.  Humans are very good at preferring their own happiness over other things, but that is not Love.

  Humans love others almost as much as themselves. Thus, they must love themselves more to love others more.

See my answer to 2.

  Brene Brown calls self-love 'vulnerability' and loving others 'empathy'.

Love is Love. To differentiate 'kinds' of love is going to result in misunderstanding love. God is Love.

  Brene Brown says in order to have more empathy we need to have more vulnerability.

Both empathy and vulnerability (and all other things) are skills. As such, they can get stronger as we practice them. Some skills may benefit others where being strong in one skill makes being strong in another easier, but I don't think empathy and vulnerability are so strongly linked as to be necessary for one another like Brown indicates.

  M Scott Peck does not say anything similar.

Not sure.

  There is something in Catholic teaching that contradicts what Brene Brown said.  If this is true, please cite from the Bible or Catholic
  teaching.

I would say yes, the Bible contradicts what Brown is saying here and therefore Catholic teaching contradicts it as well.

  The Catholic Church agrees with (2) and disagrees with (3).

The Bible disagrees with both.

  Question 2: (If there is a disagreement) What specifically is the
  practical implication, if any?

If we misunderstand Love, we misunderstand virtue, skill, habits, liturgies in short, we misunderstand how people grow. We are also very likely to misunderstand God.  If we understand Love--what it is, what it isn't, how to grow in it, why and where we are deficit in it, etc--then we are closer to knowing God. We will please God more. There is always immense implication to rightly understanding or misunderstanding the Scriptures.

In response to OP's comments:

Regarding the statement, "you already love yourselves too much."

There is no such thing as too much love. There is love, which is always right, good, true, and perfect, and then there is ... for lack of a better phrase...wrong love or lack of love. It might be possible to love yourself at all times and to love others only sometime, in which case you should train to love others all of the time, but I would not use @curiousdanii's phrase to describe this.

  'empathy' is one way to love others. I guess others would be generousity, hard work, etc

There are many ways I can love a person, and I think empathy must always be present to rightly love someone.

  As for 8, well yeah what are the PRACTICAL implications exactly? ...
  Like it doesn't really affect my work or relationships if I believe
  the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father and not the Son.

First I feel the need to explain that we always act out of our beliefs. If we believe that a chair can hold us, we will sit in it. If we refuse to sit in it then it reveals that we don't actually believe that the chair can hold us. It is the same in all things. If we believe God loves us and that we are wholly unworthy of that love on our own, then we will act very differently than if we don't believe it. (All of us believe lies to some degree, otherwise we would always act perfectly.)

So if we believe a lie (in this case, and in my opinion, that 'we can only love others as much as we love ourselves') then we will act from that lie, which will always be bad for ourselves and others. The practical implications are many (as are the practical implications of believing the lie that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father and not from the Son):

While truths can be perverted by the enemy, it is much easier for us to act perversely if we believe a lie than if we believe truth. In this case, our actions are much more likely to become inclined to 'love' ourselves only (love in quotes because this would not be love), at the exclusion of God and/or others.
We may focus on growing the wrong skill. We may focus on loving ourselves more, when instead we should focus on 1) being loved by God, 2) responding rightly (in this case accepting His love and submitting to it), 3) being changed by His love.
If we try to love ourselves, we will fail. Only by doing 1 and 2 above can we love at all.
etc.

  [Loving myself more], in my experience has enabled me to love others
  more. So I overlooked something?

I would say yes, but at the same time I would rejoice that you have grown in love! We can grow even when we don't believe everything perfectly. This should be obvious because 1) we don't believe everything perfect, and yet 2) we still grow. But how quickly, efficiently, and thoroughly you grow will not be as good as it could be. Consider swimming. If we start with someone who can't swim, and tell them that their primary source of success in swimming is kicking their legs, and then proceed to teach them to swim, they will get better at swimming. But they will be limited because success in swimming is not primarily about kicking. Later, when they see the lie, they will have to 'unlearn' a lot, and then learn how to swim all over again, in a certain sense, or forever be limited.

  When you say love is not a quantity, do you mean something like it is
  binary/absolute rather than continuous/subject to gradation? If not,
  what do you mean?.

Loving can be portrayed as an acquired skill. Consider the skill of playing an instrument. You or I can practice flute or guitar or violin for years and years until we are quite good. We have increased our ability to play well. However, we may decide to play poorly for some strange reason. Or we may neglect to rehearse a certain piece and then perform it far below our ability at the concert. Love is the same way. We may practice love for years and years until we are quite good, and our ability to love has increased. But we may decide to not love someone because we're tired or hungry, or they are a different political party than us, or a different color, or some other reason (Consider Mat 5:46 in light of what I just wrote. Jesus is instructing us to grow in our ability and consistency to love). Any skill is made up of ability and execution. If we want to master a skill, we must grow our ability and consistently execute at the top of our ability. When we begin, our ability is low and thus our execution will look poor even though we are executing at the top of our ability.

  I think this is precision being sacrificed for concision. We could say
  'we cannot love others if we do not love ourselves' kinda like 1 John
  4:20 which talks about love binary-ily.

You are probably correct that Brown, Saint John, and others, are sacrificing precision for concision, which we must do on a regular basis or risk speaking Entish. That does not make them wrong. However, we must be careful when communicating with people who don't know us very very well, to be precise or risk misunderstanding.

In much of what I just wrote I neglected to outline what part God plays. Phi 2:12-13 indicates that we are responsible to work it out because God has already brought about the desire and effort. He is there before we ever realize we desire to do good, He has paved the way for us, He will help and accompany us on the way, but we must make the effort.


What proportion of Christians worldwide identify as Christian for social/cultural reasons rather than religious conviction? In 2007 survey showed that only half of the French who identify themselves as Catholics believed in God.

  Some respondents indicated that for them, Catholicism involves a social or cultural identity rather than a religious commitment.

I was wondering whether global figures were known, i.e. do we know how large globally is the share of Christians (alternatively of Catholics) which believe in God?

What proportion of Christians worldwide identify as Christian for social/cultural reasons rather than religious conviction?

It would be difficult to come up with a specific percentage.

Those who call themselves Christian for financial or social advantage usually do so when Christianity is an ascendency. Like when Christianity was made official in the Roman empire in the fourth century and in America during the 19th and 20th centuries. In Europe during the middle ages you may have seen some pretend Christians not necessarily for advantage but survival because there would be penalties for trying to live as a non-Christian.

There have always been Christians (or any other religion) that are of that religion for what might be called familial inertial reasons. Legacy or heritage members of a religion would be hard to distinguish until that religion became persecuted and they took advantage of the opportunity to leave the religion.

The reaction of Christians to a world hostile to them was described by Jesus;

  Luke 9:26  For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of
  him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own
  glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels.

Whatever the percentage is today it would be shrinking because it is starting to become a disadvantage to be a Christian.


When is it morally acceptable to lie? Lying is a sin. It is a violation of one of the Ten Commandments, and a disobeying of God.
However, there are many instances in the Bible where someone may lie (usually to protect someone), and God does not punish it as he would a sin, thus meaning that the act was not a sin.
When, if ever, is it morally acceptable to lie?

The 9th commandment (Ex 20:16) is about being a false witness (perjury) which implicates others to be judged guilty in a court setting.  The commandment does not prohibit all types of lying.  Being a false witness is a much more specific type of lying that is harmful to another person.  It is especially pernicious because it causes an innocent person to suffer great harm.
The obvious example you cited is lying to protect someone, for example lying to a villain in order protect someone hiding in your house.  The Bible provided at least 2 examples where the LORD in fact rewarded them for lying in order to protect others:

The midwives who protected the Hebrew babies: Ex 1:19
Rahab in protecting the two Israelite spies: Joshua 2:5

The core of Christian morality is love.  Therefore, a helpful frame to evaluate when it is morally acceptable to lie is whether in NOT lying we will be unloving.  Lying should be done as a last resort, after every other option has been considered (including not saying anything).  Or to put it in a positive and precise terms, ask yourself

In this particular circumstances where I am forced to say something about X, should I fib or even blatantly lie in order to promote X's well being while causing the least harm to everything else, including my own reputation?

For more resources:

gotquestions.org article Is it ever right to lie?
wikipedia article Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour for how various denominations (and also Judaism) interpret and expand the applications of this commandment.
The book Just Deceivers: An Exploration of the Motif of Deception in the Books of Samuel (recommended by @curiousdannii).


Does Mark 16:9-20 Prove the Bible is not the infallible word of God? Regarding Mark 16:9-20: To my knowledge, most biblical scholars agree that the last 12 verses of the Gospel of Mark were added at a later date in order to give a more coherent finish to a seemingly abrupt gospel ending.

My question:

Are the last 12 verses of Mark an addition to the original manuscript, and if so, does this cast doubt upon the claim that the Bible is the inspired and infallible word of God?

Short answer, no.  Not at all.

It would count as plausible deniability to the straw-man definition of "the inspired and infallible word of God", but only to the false straw-man understanding.

The problem is that, almost no denomination believes that inspiration and infallibility are attributed to modern versions/translations of Scripture.  Inspiration and infallibility are attributed only to the original manuscripts, as recorded by the original authors.  We have always allowed for the possibility of copyist errors, mistakes, etc.  This is explained in great detail here: From a Fundamentalist standpoint, what does the phrase "Inspired, infallible, inerrant Word of God" mean?

(That is from a Fundamentalist perspective, but most denominations and traditions agree that infallibility and inerrancy are only attributed to the original manuscripts.)

This does leave the question of "If the current versions could contain mistakes, how do we know that we can depend on them?  How do we know they haven't changed over time so much that they can no longer be trusted?"  That's also an answered question: What is "Manuscript Evidence" and how is it useful?


How were the authors of the four gospels literate? I'm curious how the authors of the four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) actually knew how to write. They were fishermen and simple people, and very few people knew how to write back then.

Perhaps some will say that it was the Holy Spirit who gave them this ability, but I'd like to know whether there is some other historical explanation for the fact that they were literate.

I think you've cross wired your history a little bit. The lower overall literacy rate at the time doesn't mean nobody was literate. It certainly doesn't follow that a hand picked set of men must be illiterate because a lower percentage of the population was educated. Not everybody was a fisherman, ond even those that were often had other backgrounds and experiences. In fact most of the NT was written by folks with more formal education than yourself (and I say that expecting it to be true even if you turn out to have a P.h.D or something like that). Paul was about as educated as you could get at the time. And while he might have been baffled by a cell phone, it would be a mistake to assume that that his literacy was inferior to yours.

Back to the gospel authors that you asked about.

Luke was a medical doctor turned historian, not a fisherman. 'Nuf said.
John wrote John. That may sound rhetorical in a sense but while there are some strange linguistic features to the books he wrote, it would be hard to make an argument for him being illiterate based on the works he produced. Did he come from high blood and start his education early? No probably not—in fact he was likely quite young when he started with Jesus. In any event his writing shows evidence of both having been an eyewitness to Jesus like as well as being familiar with the literature of his times, the Hebrew scriptures, and of being articulate.
Matthew wasn't a fisherman either. He was a tax collector, and that meant being literate in at least two languages. Possible more. In any event his education would have been enough to get employment in a field that required a working knowledge of both his own country's laws and those of the occupying empire.
Mark is the biggest unknown on this list and his writing suggests he might have been less well educated as some of his compatriots. His work is likely the earliest written and he seems to almost fall over his own words telling some of the stories. It's likely he didn't have a lot of upper level education. On the other hand his lack of command over the finner points of grammar are more than made up for by his first hand accounts. And yes, he was literate.

The issue of actually dealing with a pen and paper was somewhat more complex than it is now (Ever tried to write with hand made implements on hand made substrates?) and it's possible that some or all the books were dictated. While this could have helped an illiterate person get a written record of their experiences, there is no particular reason to believe that was the case with any of the NT authors. It's more likely that if anything was dictated it was more a matter of pragmatics.


What is the biblical basis for NOT tithing? On what biblical grounds do denominations that do not adhere to the practice of tithing usually defend their case? What is the biblical basis for not tithing?

The biblical basis for Christians not being obliged to tithe is based on the fact that tithing is an Old Testament concept and applied only to people living under the Mosaic Law. The tithe was a requirement of the Law in which the Israelites were to give 10 percent of the crops they grew and the livestock they raised to the tabernacle/temple (Leviticus 27:30; Numbers 18:26; Deuteronomy 14:24; 2 Chronicles 31:5).
After the death and resurrection of Christ Jesus, the Law was fulfilled and God cancelled the written code, with its regulations (the Mosaic Law), and nailed it to the cross (Colossians 2:14).  The Mosaic Law required that tithes be collected from the people, but no longer:

The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God. (Hebrews 7:18)

Christians do not have to submit to any legalistic tithe system.  The New Testament nowhere designates a percentage of income a person should set aside, but the early church did collect money to send as a gift to Christians in Jerusalem:

On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made. (1 Corinthians 16:2)

Here is the biblical principle that applied to Christians back then and to Christians today:

Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, For God loves a cheerful giver. (2 Corinthians 9:7)

Just as the first Christians sold their possessions and willingly shared what they had with those in need (Acts 4:34-35), so today Christians are at liberty to give freely, as they are able.


According to Biblical Literalists, who is Satan? Where did he come from? What is he? And what will happen to him? According to Protestant Biblical Literalists:

Who is Satan?
Where did he come from?
Where is he going or what will happen to him?

I'm interested in answers with citations from the Bible.

#1 & #2: Who is he? Where did he come from? Satan was/is the highest created angel, with God from the beginning, along with the other angels (Ez. 28:13). Sometime before the creation of mankind, Satan convinced 1/3 of the angels to rebel against God, ultimately with God and the remaining angels winning (Rev. 12:3-9). After this occurs, we know that Satan takes the form of a serpent in the Garden of Eden and convinces Adam and Eve to eat from the Tree of Life (Gen. 3:3-5), thus starting "The Fall".

#3:Where is he going or what will happen to him? Satan will always be in rebellion to God. Near the end of the days, a false prophet and a beast will be given authority to rule for forty-two months (Rev. 13:1-5), who will convince "the kings of the earth" to fight against God (Rev. 19:19) in the "Battle of Armageddon". God and his angels will defeat them, and they will be "thrown into the lake of fire"; Satan will be chained for 1000 years, and Jesus Christ will rule the Earth for this time (Rev. 20:2-3). Satan will again be released for a short time, for one more attack against God, but "fire from Heaven will consume the rebels". Finally, at this point, Satan will be cast into the lake of fire, to be tormented day and night, forever and ever (Rev. 20:7-10).


The Trinity before the birth of Jesus If Jesus was born at a certain date in history, do trinitarian Christians believe that the Trinity did not exist before that date? Alternatively, is some sort of incorporeal Jesus believed to have been in existence despite not yet having been born?

Christians believe that the Trinity consists of three distinct persons with one divine nature.

This Trinitarian Godhead exists infinitely and eternally, and therefore existed before time.

Christians also adhere to the very distinct doctrine of the Hypostatic Union, which is the belief that Jesus Christ has two natures.

One nature is truly divine. One nature is truly human.

These two doctrines are clearly stated in the first chapter of the Gospel of St. John:

  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
  was God. He was in the beginning with God.

The "Son" (2nd Person of the Trinity) existed "before all ages."  The Son was born into the world of a virgin roughly 2000 years ago. His name is Jesus Christ.

The Nicene Creed puts it best:

  We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally
  begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from
  true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through
  him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down
  from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from
  the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under
  Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he
  rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven
  and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in
  glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no
  end.

Was the Son eternally begotten?


According to Calvinists, Luke 22:8 what date did it happen? Luke 22

  (7)Then came the day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb
  had to be sacrificed.  (8)Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, "Go
  and make preparations for us to eat the Passover."

From the info of verse 7, so when Jesus say "Go and make preparations for us to eat the Passover" I guess it happen in the time where the Jewish people either are preparing a lamb to be sacrificed (sacrificed in the same day) or even maybe some of the Jews are already sacrificing the lamb when Jesus say that.

Assuming my guessing is correct, the question is :
What date that event happen ?
13 Nissan ? 14 Nissan ? or 15 Nissan ?

The Catholic opinion is sought here.

The Lutheran opinion is sought here.

The Last Supper seems in the Synoptic Gospels to take place at the time of the Passover Meal. This would imply that Luke 22: 7 took place in the morning of Nissan 14.

However, John's Gospel appears to put the Crucifixion on Nissan 14.

In his commentary Calvin posed the question this way:

  How did Christ observe that ceremony on the day before the whole nation celebrated the public Passover? For John plainly affirms that the day on which Christ was crucified was, among the Jews, the preparation, not of the Sabbath, but of the Passover,

In Calvin's view then, Jesus and His disciples observed the Passover a day earlier than most of the Jews.

It may be worth mentioning that the Jewish calendar was used for religious feasts but the Roman civil calendar was in more general use. The month of Nissan, like all months, began with the first sighting of the New Moon. However if the barley was not sufficiently ripe at the start of the month then they would wait until the following New Moon to announce that Nissan had begun.

In this way there were sometimes 13 months in the year and sometimes 12, and it would not be known until just before the month started whether it would be Nissan or not. Since the fourth century AD Jews have used a mathematical formula to add a 13th month 7 times every 19 years, but at the time of Christ it was done on an ad hoc basis.

Back to Calvin, how does he explain why Jesus celebrated Passover a day earlier than most of the Jews? He says:

  I have no doubt, therefore, that Christ observed the day appointed by the Law, and that the Jews followed a custom which had been long in use. First, it is beyond a doubt that Christ was put to death on the day before the Sabbath; for he was hastily buried before sunset in a sepulchre which was at hand, (John 19:42,) because it was necessary to abstain from work after the commencement of the evening. Now it is universally admitted that, by an ancient custom, when the Passover and other festivals happened on Friday, they were delayed till the following day, because the people would have reckoned it hard to abstain from work on two successive days.

Calvin's view was that there was a Jewish tradition that if Passover fell on a Friday then it was transferred to Saturday instead. This is because Saturday was the Sabbath and people thought it too hard to abstain from work two days running. Jesus however celebrated it at the correct time according to the Law.

If this is true then the incident in Luke 22: 7 took place on Nissan 14.

This was Calvin's view, but is it the Calvinist view? Not necessarily, there Is no definite doctrine on the matter.

The Reformed view generally would usually be that the apparent contradiction between Luke and John must have some explanation. Rather than choose between conflicting accounts the Reformed tradition would tend to find some way to choose both, and if none can be found then that still doesn't prove there isn't one.

Beyond this, is there anything in Calvin's theory which is representative of his thought, beyond being his personal view on a non-dogmatic issue? Maybe.

Calvin's idea is that the priests had been doing it all wrong for a very long time. This is a motif seldom far from Calvin's thought. As in Rome at Calvin's time, so in Jerusalem at Christ's.

Secondly Calvin says the idea of having to abstain from work for two days running would be too hard to bear. The modern weekend did not exist in sixteenth century Geneva. Perhaps Calvin's aversion to two days off is an an example of the Calvinist Work Ethic.

Nevertheless, we cannot really say there is a Reformed position on this.


Why didn't Mary tell Joseph what Gabriel had said to her? From Gabriel's visitation of Mary in Luke 1:26-38, ending with this famous line:

  "I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. "May your word to me be
  fulfilled." Then the angel left her.

And also a dream Joseph was given from Matthew 1:18-25:

  But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him
  in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take
  Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the
  Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the
  name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins."

One of these visitations must have happened before the other and it's not clear to me which since they are from different authors of the Gospel. Are we to infer that Joseph did not relate this to Mary, and that she kept quiet as well? If so, why? I don't believe that either was asked to keep the visits to themselves.

If we look at the part from Matthew, it is clear that Mary knew she was pregnant, or was getting pregnant before Joseph did. Joseph thinks about putting her away before he has a dream where he is told to stay with her. Matthew 1:19:

  19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make
  her a public example, was minded to put her away privily

Joseph is thinking of putting her away because he is a just man, he knows the scripture that says in Deteronomy 22:22-27 that, at least Mary, is in trouble.

  22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then
  they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and
  the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.
  23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a
  man find her in the city, and lie with her;
  24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and
  ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she
  cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his
  neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
  25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man
  force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall
  die.
  26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel
  no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his
  neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:
  27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and
  there was none to save her.

Mary might, very likely, have told Joseph about the visitation of Gabriel. If she told, it did not matter for Joseph to worry. He knew that the Law forbids Mary to have had sex before they are married. The thought of putting Mary away is because no one will believe that Mary was pregnant from the Holy Ghost (yet). This makes being pregnant for very dangerous for Mary, and perhaps also for Joseph.


What is the Biblical evidence that there are ONLY three persons in the "Trinity"? (This is a followup to the various answers for the question What is the Biblical basis for the doctrine of the Trinity?)

The specific concept of 'trinity' isn't specifically spelled out in the Bible.  Instead, we have deduced from various scripture verses that there are three distinct persons within the Godhead.

What is the Biblical evidence that there are only three persons in the Godhead?  Why don't trinitarians believe that there could be others that are not revealed specifically through scripture, or that we can attribute multiple "persons" to a single concept of Father or Holy Spirit?

Our biggest clue is from this scripture:

Matthew 28:19 (NIV)

  Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Beyond that, I know of no other verses that limit the Godhead to three persons.


Where does prevenient grace originate in the Bible? What is the Biblical basis for Prevenient Grace?

I am specifically referring to the belief that if a child is born and dies before reaching the age of responsibility, and so did not have the opportunity to accept Christ, that child will still go to heaven.

From a Lutheran perspective:

We do not believe in us having to do anything.  Even accepting Christ.

Ephesians 1:4

  4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.

He chose us.  Not the other way around.

If we don't accept Christ, how do we know that we're saved?

Baptism.

1 Peter 3:21

  21 Baptism now saves you

Only God can really know whether someone goes to heaven or hell, but if the child were baptised, I would say that 1 Peter 3:21 provides a good basis for the belief that they could still go to heaven.


How did Nathanael see the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man? In Jesus' encounter with Nathanael, Jesus concludes the conversation by indicating that Nathanael, as well as others, would see the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.

  43 The next day Jesus decided to go to Galilee. He found Philip and
  said to him, “Follow me.” 44 Now Philip was from Bethsaida, the city
  of Andrew and Peter. 45 Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We
  have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote,
  Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” 46 Nathanael said to him, “Can
  anything good come out of Nazareth?” Philip said to him, “Come and
  see.” 47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him and said of him,
  “Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no deceit!” 48
  Nathanael said to him, “How do you know me?” Jesus answered him,
  “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw
  you.” 49 Nathanael answered him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You
  are the King of Israel!” 50 Jesus answered him, “Because I said to
  you, ‘I saw you under the fig tree,’ do you believe? You will see
  greater things than these.” 51 And he said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.”  John 1:43-51 ESV

So, in what manner did Nathanael "see the angels of God ascending and descending on the son of Man?"

According to someone in this question (moved from christianity to hermeneutics):

  First, the phrase "the angels of God ascending and descending" links Jesus' statement back to Jacob's dream in Genesis 28. In that story Jacob himself glimpses a new reality. He says, "Surely the LORD is in this place, and I was not aware of it. How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God; this is the gate of heaven." In connecting himself to this, Jesus is perhaps indicating that what Jacob saw, Nathanael will soon see in the Son of Man: namely, the presence of the I AM, the "house of God" and the "gate of heaven" (cf. John 8:58, John 2:19-22, John 10:1-9).

Also according to bible.cc:

  Heaven open - This is a figurative expression, denoting "the conferring of favors." Psalm 78:23-24; "he opened the doors of heaven, and had rained down manna." It also denotes that God was about to work a miracle in attestation of a particular thing. See Matthew 3:16. In the language, here, there is an evident allusion to the ladder that Jacob saw in a dream, and to the angels ascending and descending on it, Genesis 28:12. It is not probable that Jesus referred to any particular instance in which Nathanael should literally see the heavens opened. The baptism of Jesus had taken place, and no other instance occurred in his life in which it is said that the "heavens were" opened.

As both quotations seem to say that it has something to do with Jacobs Ladder I think that it is safe to say the same. Also it is interesting to note that Nathanael was a descendant of Jacob. This link here also talks a little about this topic, saying:

  this passage shows Nathanael to be a thoughtful and reflective sort of person.  The statements of Jesus Christ about being an Israelite relate to his descent from Jacob, who was certainly a man full of guile and deceit during his early life.  That said, it would appear as if Nathanael was under the fig tree (a common representation of a philosophical sort of person) thinking about the dream of Jacob where angels went up and down the stairway to heaven, showing the relationship between heaven and earth and the possibility of communication between the two realms.  This musing on deep and spiritual matters allows Jesus Christ to call him as a member of the twelve without hesitation or complaint.

I don't know if people dislike so many quotations, but I found that they all relate quite well to the subject. I don't know. Think what you will from the quotations and links. What i get from it is that it was more of one of Jesus' encrypted sayings, not really meaning exactly what he says.


Which Roman Catholic doctrines are infallible? I know that the Pope can speak infallibly (ex cathedra), and that this has officially been done once, as well as three times before Papal infallibility was formally declared. I would assume that any doctrine he talks about or mentions would be infallible, at least with regards to the bits spoken while in ex cathedra mode. Additionally, however, I can't immediately think of a reason why ex cathedra statements would be the only ones to result in infallible doctrines. Thus, my question is: which doctrines of the Roman Catholic church are infallible?

If none, many, or all of Roman Catholic Church doctrines are infallible, then say so. In the case of many, a broad classification would be appreciated. If there is a small number of them, then a list would be greatly appreciated.

Short answer: According to the catholic church, ALL of its doctrines are infallible.

Long answer:
The problem arises when someone questions whether a particular subject (matter of grave importance) is a Catholic doctrine or not. When that occurs, and there is an eminent danger of those people (who may or may not hold an ecclesiastical post) present a false doctrine as official church teaching, then pope has to step in and clear the matter by pronouncing a doctrine as a dogma. Now, there are some doctrines which will never be formally defined as dogmas, probably because no one will question them. (for example, virgin birth of Christ)

I understand that there is a room to wiggle around with respect to a doctrine. But as with a dogma, it is, with no second thought, infallible from a Catholic POV

Wikipedia article on Papal infallibility lists out seven instances of a pope speaking ex cathedra:

  "Tome to Flavian", Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon;
  Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople;
  Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just after death rather than only just prior to final judgment;
  Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical;
  Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical;
  Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the Immaculate Conception;
  Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the Assumption of Mary.

The above article also states that there is no complete list of doctrines or dogmas ever prepared by the Holy See. Which understandably is an impossible task.

My personal opinion: When ever a canonization occurs, it is infallible too, because it satisfies all of the criteria of an infallible statement.

Just a footnote: A dogma is a doctrine to be believed by Catholics that has been proposed by the Church to be divinely and formally revealed. A dogma can be defined by a valid ecumenical council, approved by the pope. Or by the pope himself alone. Doctrine just means teaching which are assumed to be accepted by the universal church. There is no formal declaration is needed for a doctrine. Always a dogma and a doctrine will not contradict the scriptures.


What is the Catholic Church's view of Anne Catherine Emmerich - can her visions and prophecies be trusted? What is the Catholic Church's view of Anne Catherine Emmerich - can her visions and prophecies be trusted? Is she a true prophet by the biblical standard?

(This question has been prompted by the comments to the answer to What did the serpent look like?)

Please see the link below. In a nutshell, at present the Church distinguishes between the writings attributed to her (which the Church acknowledges may have been done by someone else who then put Emerich's name to those writings) and Emerich herself, her life being one of extraordinary virtue (hence her beatification as a blessed).

Source: Catholic Answers.

At any rate, the Church holds that private revelations, such as those that have been attributed to Emerich, are never binding on Catholics and do not add to the Deposit of Faith in Scripture.


Who were the "scribes" whom Jesus often disputes against in the canonical gospels? And when Jesus finished these sayings, the crowds were astonished at
  his teaching, for he was teaching them as one who had authority, and
  not as their scribes. (Matthew 7:28-29 ESV)

There are numerous references to the scribes in the gospels and they are usually unsympathetic portrayals. Nonetheless, Jesus appears to have a very high view of what is now called the Old Testament scriptures. Presumably, these documents would be copied and maintained by scribes. Who are these scribes in question? Are they the same people who maintained the Old Testament, and if so why would they be unsympathetic characters?

If scope of the question should need to be narrowed, this is in reference to the historical identity of this group whom the canonical author places in disputation with Jesus from those who are involved in academic religious history.

In Ancient Judaism, preserving and accurately copying the scriptures was a task considered to be of the utmost importance.  As such, an official Temple position dedicated to this task was created.  Such a scribal position was not unique to Judaism; indeed, many ancient societies had trained professionals whose primary job was to maintain and copy religious records and scriptures.

Such copyists and maintainers of the religious records were regularly immersed in the text and thus quickly became experts in it.  Thus, in Temple-era Judaism the term "Scribes" refers both to the copyists and to experts in the scriptures in general.  In later Rabbinic writing, the Scribes are described as "teachers with authority" and elsewhere as "copyists and teachers" (jobs that taken on by Rabbisafter the Temple fell, with the specific scribal roles disappearing entirely by the Talmudic period).  Such literature considers their teachings to have been authoritative and ascribes many legal interpretations to the Scribes.  Scribes also functioned as councilors, philosophers, and sophists at times.

Historically, most of the scribes were probably priests or members of the priestly class.  Ezra, for example, is described as a scribe (Ezra 7:6) and priest (Ezra 10:10).  However, in the late Temple period, non-priests were added to the ranks as duties of the scribes increased.  In the Maccabean period, the term "Scribe" became a title.  Ben Sira describes a Scribe as a wise man with comprehensive knowledge.

Josephus does not speak of a specific "Scribes" group, but says that scribes were employed at all levels of government.  As such, the Scribes of Jesus' day do not appear to have been a distinct social group, but more akin to bureaucrats.  That is, experts on the Law and Jewish life in general, not a distinct class of people.  That said, the evidence suggests most lived in Jerusalem and were closely associated with the Temple priests.  These Scribes likely help enforce Jewish law and pick Sanhedrin members.

This picture is consistent with the Gospel accounts.  Mark describes the Scribes as high officials and advisors of the priests.  Matthew portrays them as learned leaders of the people.  Luke shows them as leaders and protectors of Judaism associating with the Pharisees and Chief Priest.  Collectively the accounts show people who did not necessarily have official power, but yielded considered authority due to the people's respect for their knowledge.

Source: Allen Ross, "The Scribes" (2006), hosted at Bible.org


Can Hebrews Chapter 4 use of "Today" Be Used to Refute mistranslation of Luke 23:43 in the New World Translation of the Bible? See the "today" doctrine presented in Hebrews:

Hebrews 4:

  6 Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who
  formerly received the good news failed to enter because of
  disobedience, 7 again he appoints a certain day, “Today,” saying
  through David so long afterward, in the words already quoted,

  “Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts.”

  8 For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken of
  another day later on.

...

  11 Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by
  the same sort of disobedience.

And notice Jesus' response to the repentant man dying beside him:

Luke 23:43

  And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in
  Paradise.”

The paradise, of course, being "the rest" and today being the "today" of the discussion in Hebrews.

Notice the placement of the comma which causes an entire doctrinal omission:

  New World Translation: Truly I tell you today, [notice comma placement] You will be
  with me in Paradise.

My question is this:

Can the passage of Hebrews regarding the hope of "today" be linked with Jesus' assurance to the repentant man dying beside him that he would be in paradise "today"?

If we can indeed connect these two thoughts as proof of "today", is this sufficient proof to explain the  New World Translation misrepresentation of the Luke 23:43?

If Jehovah's Witness doctrine has been engineered to evade even this point, what further investigation needs to be done to fully refute the comma-caused doctrinal omission  regarding "Today"?

I don't think so, since the original manuscripts had no punctuation at all.  Where to place - or even to place at all - commas, periods, colons, semicolons, question marks - is left to the discretion of the interpreter.

I believe the only recourse one has is to appeal to the Church Fathers - particularly the Greek Fathers - and understand how they interpreted the passage, trusting that they are faithful to the teaching of the Apostles.

In John Chrysostom's Homilies Concerning the Power of Demons, he words are translated by the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Series translator:

  So has God done. He gave Paradise to man. He cast him out when he
  appeared unworthy, in order that by his dwelling outside, and through
  his dishonour, he might become better, and more self-restrained, and
  might appear worthy again of restoration. Since after those things he
  did become better, he brings him back again and says Today shalt thou
  be with me in Paradise  Homily I

There are similar commentaries in other writings of Chrysostom, as well as in works of Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzus, and other Fathers.


How can Christians reconcile the request to prohibit same-sex marriage and the lawfulness of homosexuality itself? Assuming one believes that the bible is the word of god, believes that the bible says homossexuality is wrong (or commonly quoted, an abomination), and because of that gays should not marry, how come one says same-sex marriage should be unlawful and homosexuality itself should not? In other words, if one wants to prohibit same-gender marriages because homosexuality is an abomination, shouldn't one be proposing to make it unlawful just to be gay or act upon homosexuality such as build a household or simply have sex with someone of the same gender?

Edit: I would like to clarify the point of my question a little better. I am not really interested in if Gay Marriage should be outlawed or not (I personally believe it should not, but that's besides the point). Of course I am also not suggesting the viability of attempting to outlaw homosexuality itself, which is absurd in our society.
My point is that I see people DEFENDING certain rights of homosexuals' such as the right to have homosexual relationships, public display of affection, the right to constitute a family, adopt, etc, and at the same time say their marriage should be banned because homosexuality is a sin/abomination. That is the disconnect I am trying to understand.

I don't know anyone who says that he believes homosexual marriage is bad but homosexual sex in general is okay. The nature of the current legal debate is that homosexuals are demanding a change in the laws regarding marriage, which some who believe homosexuality to be a sin are opposing. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that you see an inconsistency if someone opposes gay marriage but does not at the same time campaign to make gay sex in general illegal.

But that's the nature of political debate, isn't it? You can't deal with every possible issue at the same time. It's not inconsistent to fight for or against one particular law without simultaneously campaigning for or against every other law that exists on any related topic, plus every law that you can imagine that might be passed. You can't deal with everything at once. You can only fight so many battles at one time.

Suppose during the 1950s someone campaigned against racially segregated schools. Would you say that he is "inconsistent" because he does not also campaign against job discrimination? Maybe he doesn't have the time or resources to conduct both campaigns. You have to pick your battles.

There's also the whole big question of the relationship between law, morality, and religion. Should Christians work to make everything that the Bible calls a sin made illegal? Or, even assuming that that was politically possible, would that be an inappropriate role for government?

I think a case could be made that the government should have laws defining and regulating marriage, because these are relevant to taxation, inheritance, and other things that are routinely considered legitimate functions of government. And if the government must define it, then it cannot escape the question of whether a gay couple can or cannot be considered married. But what gay people do in their own homes does not necessarily impinge on legitimate functions of government. (Personally, I'm not really convinced by this argument, but I think it's reasonable.)


What is an overview of resurrection events in the New Testament? I was recently reading the account of Messiah's Passion in the Gospel of Matthew and read over this passage that I did not recall,

  Matthew 27:52-53 NASB The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many.

The passage stuck out to me for a few reasons:

It is not synchronous with the immediate context of the narrative of Christ's passion and resurrection, since it appears at the point of the narrative before Jesus encounters Pilate.
This resurrection event is not recalled in the other Gospels.
The pre-millennial resurrection of Revelation 20 is called the "first resurrection".

I am curious to know how this relates to other resurrection events in the New Testament, especially events in which more than one person rises from the grave.

What is an overview of resurrection events in the New Testament?

For an overview of sorts, one could look to the Diatessaron of Tatian.  It is an early harmony of the Gospels - written in Syriac, probably in the 2nd century - that was the basis for a respected Gospel commentary by Ephrem the Syrian.  [If I am not mistaken, the oldest Latin Gospel manuscripts in existence are in the form of a Diatessaron, but I might be recalling incorrectly.] The Resurrection accounts are in Sections 52 through 55, starting here.  New Advent provides links to all of the actual Gospel verses indicated.

Another approach might be to consult the Eusebian Canons, compiled in the early 4th century, which cross-reference Gospel passages to one another.  This is not an overview as requested, but could serve as a tool for creating one's own overview if the Diatessaron is found lacking.  The only online version of the Eusebian tables I am aware of is here.


When were the angels created? I was preparing a lesson for Sunday school and came across this passage in the teaching material:

  Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding, who set its measurements? Since you know. Or who stretched the line on it? On what were its bases sunk? Or who laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38:4-7)

The NIV uses "angels" instead of "sons of God" implying angels were present at the creation of the earth.

So my question is, when were the angels created, exactly?  Was it on day one of the "Creation Week"? ... Was it before the first day of Creation? (How is that possible?) ... Was it "outside of time"?

Please use Scripture to support your answer.  I am also curious whether the passage I quoted relates to the answer (do "sons of God" refer to angels), and if so, how?

Thomas Aquinas cites Psalm 148 in STh Ia 61,1 (Whether the angels have a cause of their existence?), holding that the word "they" in verse 5 refers to all of what is listed earlier in the psalm:

  Praise him, all his angels, praise him, all his host!
      3 Praise him, sun and moon, praise him, all you shining stars!
      4 Praise him, you highest heavens, and you waters above the heavens!
      5 Let them praise the name of the LORD! For he commanded and they were created

He seems to be following Augustine here. Compare City of God Book XI, ch. 9, where Augustine cites Psalm 148 and also cites a similar passage from the Prayer of Azariah Canticle of the Three Young Men in Daniel 3 (this portion of Daniel is considered apocryphal by some).

Augustine seems to take it for granted that Job 38:7 refers to the angels, and actually uses this passage as the starting-point in his argument that the creation of the angels is included in what Genesis calls the creation of light (because the angels already existed when the stars were created). I don't know what text of Job he would have had, but he quotes it thus:

  Quando facta sunt sidera, laudauerunt me uoce magna omnes angeli mei.

Literally, "when the stars were made, all my angels praised me in a loud voice". The entire (relatively brief) chapter is basically one fascinating answer to your question.


Was Catholicism chosen by the Roman Empire because of synergies to Roman hierarchy? I was watching a documentary on the History Channel recently and they mentioned that when the Roman Empire converted to Christianity, they chose Catholicism because of its similarities to the hierarchy of the Roman government of the time. I had never heard that before and am wondering if there is any documented evidence of this being the main reason in their decision.

In my catechetical training, and in a biography of Constantine, I learned that the conversion of the Roman Empire was "top down". Constantine converted to Christianity, made Christians equal to those of practitioners of other religions, and lower class Romans found it expedient to adopt the religion of the emperor. The development of the hierarchy of Catholic Church resulted in similarities to the Roman political structures because the Catholic Church deliberately copied those structures because they worked. Romans at first did not convert but later decided to adopt Catholicism as their religion.


Why was Peter Fishing Naked (John 21:7)? John 21: 7

  7 Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the
  Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his
  fisher's coat unto him, (for he was naked,) and did cast himself into
  the sea.

Was he REALLY naked or just embarrassed? The Holy Bible seems to correlate nakedness with shamefulness.

The ESV renders the verse in question:

  That disciple whom Jesus loved therefore said to Peter, “It is the Lord!” When Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put on his outer garment, for he was stripped for work, and threw himself into the sea.

It seems to contain the implication that he was wearing some kind of inner garment while working, and likely was not naked.


Is it a sin to do "works" for the sake of "rewards" in heaven? I was reading up on an article that was talking about rewards in heavens. Then it struck me, is it a sin to do "works" for the sake of "rewards" in heaven ?

What does the Bible have to say regarding doing works for the sake of rewards in heaven ?==
Side question: What is the difference between "seeking personal gain" and "selfish ambition" ?

I would have to say No.

Jesus said in Matthew 6:20 (NIV):

  But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal.

Here, he indicates that you should work towards heavenly treasures.

Furthermore, he encouraged here, in Matthew 19:21 (NIV)

  Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

If you read the entire passage, the motivation for the rich man was to attain eternal life: “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?” (Matthew 19:16).  The motivation was clearly selfish and self motivated.  However, Jesus did not respond saying that the motivation was wrong, but merely that his acts needed to be changed in order to gain treasures in heaven.

It's pretty clear that Jesus wants us to work towards heavenly treasures.

As sidran32 pointed out, while works will get you treasures in heaven, they will not provide salvation.  Of course, that's not what you asked, though, is it?


Are there any examples of deductive arguments used to defend a doctrine? Does anyone know an example of a doctrine, from any denomination, that is defended via a deductive argument, where the doctrine is logically deduced from an initial set of premises? If so, what about the argument's validity? What about its soundness?

As a reminder of what a deductive argument looks like, the following is an example taken from the Wikipedia article:

All men are mortal. (First premise)
Socrates is a man. (Second premise)
Therefore, Socrates is mortal. (Conclusion)

Another illustrative example of a deductive argument is The Kalam Cosmological Argument:

Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.

I'll give the following "syllogism" to deduce the Trinity doctrine. But first I will define what is a syllogism? A syllogism in logic is a form of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn from two given premises, one major premise and minor premise.
Here is a complex syllogism that "deduces" the Trinity.
If the Bible teaches that there is one God
and
If in the Bible The Father is identified as God
and
If in the Bible His Son is identified as God
and
If in the Bible their Spirit is identified as God
THEN the doctrine of the Trinity is valid
OR
The Bible is wrong.
So what is the definition of the Trinity? The doctrine of the trinity is not an "assumption." It is the normative systematic theology of God in Christianity and is BASED on the fact that the Bible is explicit in telling us that there is, was and forever will be only ONE God and the fact that the Bible "identifies three (and only three) persons as God.
So by what means does the Bible identify this ONE God?

His names
His titles
His unique attributes
His unique actions
His worship

I am not aware of any other literary, contextual means by which the Bible clearly identifies God. I could be wrong, but I think this list is comprehensive.
I will give two examples of of how this works. For example "His names." Called by the NAMES of God, (YHWH and its variants) either directly or indirectly, usually both.
Recognized with the TITLES of God, (Lord, king, savior, Alpha and Omega, first and last etc.) I think you get the idea. Enjoy!


How is it possible that the angels were on hand to witness the earth being created? Though we are not told exactly when angels were created, it seems to be sometime before the earth was created.

The words found at Job indicate the angelic host was present when the earth was made.

  Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding. . . when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38: 4,7).

Now some Protestant Christians will tell us that Genesis 1:1 which states

  In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

refers to the moment when all creation began.

They will also point to John 1:1

  In the beginning was the Word.......

And say the beginning spoken of here is the same as Gen 1:1.  For example this question scoped at Jehovah’s Witnesses  and the comments indicate this is a common belief .

The account in Genesis starts with heaven and earth already created and then the preparation for mankind begins on day one. “Let there be light.”

My understanding is that the angels were created some time prior to the beginning spoken of in Gen1:1. Which would mean that first creation by God took place before the beginning in Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1.
So beginning in these verses refers to the creation of the physical universe.

If the beginning of all creation was the making of heaven and earth how is it that the angels were on hand to witness the earth being created?

You've really answered your own question. God's work of creation in no way had to begin with the physical, material universe. Since angels, like God, are spiritual beings, they were not part of God's work of creation by fiat in Genesis 1 and 2. However, they, like us, were created, unlike Jehovah God, who had no beginning.

  Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God (Psalm 90:2 KJV).

Since only God inhabits eternity, which of course cannot be measured in time, a question remains in my mind: Are the angels' experience and perception of time similar to (or the same as) ours?

We cannot say with any biblical authority that God's creative work began with the angels. That God created the angels is clearly biblical, as is the likelihood they were created prior to God's calling the heavens and earth into existence. As you pointed out in your question, the book of Job seems to indicate the angels existed and were God's witnesses when he said, "Let there be . . ." (Job 38:7). The angels, in a sense, were God's cheerleaders who expressed joyfully their admiration for the wonders of God in creation.

Allow me to go beyond your question for a moment. In human terms, there was a "time" when all there was, was God. God did not need to create anyone or anything in order to complete or fulfill himself. He chose to do so because he is love (1 John 4:8), and the nature of love is to express itself to another person or persons.

From eternity, the Triune God enjoyed sweet fellowship within the Godhead. We can only imagine what that fellowship was like, but since God is love, love must have permeated the relationship that existed between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Muslims balk at such a concept. To their credit, they are in awe of God. They praise his greatness every time they pray. They also ascribe the attribute of mercy to Allah, as well as other attributes, such as omnipotence, omniscience, goodness (beneficence), immanence, and more. They do not, however, believe God is love. Indeed, how can he be if he does not exist in three persons?

Love cannot exist in a vacuum, and since Allah, as Muslims conceive of him, is not to be associated with any other eternal personage (especially a son!), he may choose to be merciful, but he is in no way loving by nature.

Getting back to the issue at hand. There is an unfortunate expression in theological circles today; namely, that God created all that is, ex nihilo, or out of nothing. I prefer to say that God created all that is, out of the fullness of his being. Not only did God not break a sweat during all his creative work, but he created all that is, not because he had to but because he chose to. And we, his image-bearers, have the privilege of praising him for something the angels will never experience; namely, being saved by God.

The apostle Peter tells us in his first letter that God's angels long to look into the salvation which only we can experience as sinners saved by grace. Perhaps someday in a future eternity, the angels' curiosity will be at least partially satisfied as they witness that great cloud of witnesses to God's grace praising, worshipping, and magnifying their God and Savior.


From where does the teaching on women in ministry come? First off, since I know this may be a somewhat controversial question in today's climate, let me just state that I'm not intending to take any part in that controversy. I'm just asking this question because I'm curious.

The position of scripture on women being ordained seems to be quite clear. I guess 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-12 are the most well-known examples.

What I'm wondering is how this teaching originated. Unless I'm wrong, it is mainly the apostles who speak about it, rather than Christ himself, or for that matter the prophets, and I haven't been able to find any source in the old testament in general. Certainly, it's not like I think that the apostles just made it up of their own volition, either.

Is it part of pre-existing Jewish law, quite simply? If that is so, how come it doesn't seem to be mentioned in the old testament? Was it simply so "obvious" at the time that there was felt no need to codify it, or did the law evolve between the relevant writings of the old testament and the time of Christ? Also, has it ever been considered by any ecumenical council (or other church authority) to have been abrogated by the new covenant? (I'm thinking that if it was considered a specifically Jewish law, then it might have been considered.)

One specific thing I'm having a hard time comprehending is the seeming conflict with the fact that there have been women who have been considered prophets and saints. If women can be bestowed with such authority, how come that priesthood is considered completely beyond them?

Keep in mind that what I'm asking about is primarily about women in ministry, not "women's rights in the Bible" as some more general question.

This appears to be a Jewish tradition rather than any precept of God, since the only Biblical reference I can find is in Paul's letter to Timothy:

1st Timothy 2:11 through 15  KJV

  Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Since Paul was a well schooled Pharisee, this might be a hold over concept from those teachings. Before the time of Jesus the Sanhedrin had so polluted Judaism, that many of the stringent restrictions were the ideas included at the desire of Religious leadership.

Some Denominations today hold on to this concept because it was espoused by Paul.


Does the Bible condemn white lies? Orthodox views on it state that any sort of lie is a sin by itself. More liberal Christians will say that it doesn't really mean that much provided it doesn't hurt anybody. But more importantly than personal opinions; what does the Bible have to say about white lies?

In the sermon of the mount, Jesus teaches about the sixth through tenth commandments, deepening their meaning.  For example, "Don't kill" he expands to "Don't have unresolved anger or conflict".  "Don't commit adultery" becomes "Don't lust".

For "Don't bear false witness", Jesus says (not quoting one of the ten commandments directly, but a related passage about making vows):

  Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, "You shall not make false vows, but shall fulfill your vows to the Lord."  But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.  Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black.  But let your statement be, "Yes, yes" or "No, no"; anything beyond these is of evil.

  Matthew 5:33-37 (NASB)

The idea is that you should always follow through with what you say.  In other words, be trustworthy.  The same applies to the commandment: people should be able to trust you, whether that is in a courtroom, or in daily life.

White lies are not compatible with being trustworthy, because it tells others that you will lie for the sake of convenience.

Whether white lies are ok in the context of helping another, I don't know.  That leads to: "can the ends justify the means?"


According a Catholic interpretation of the natural law, do individuals posses a right to privacy? This question is mainly about the idea of contact tracing, but in a broader sense, in the Natural Law, as interpreted by the Catholic Church, her doctors, popes, noted philosophers, well-meaning dons, radio personalities, etc... do individuals have a right to privacy and if so, what sort of a right is that?
Is it merely a negative right, as in, other people have a duty not to pry into your details or do people have a positive right to keep things to themselves?

In Catholic Republic written by author Timothy Gordon (page 38ff), he outlines there are only 3 rights directly under Natural Law: Right to Life, Right to Liberty and Right to Property, so one cannot directly say that according to natural law one has a right to privacy. However, that doesn't mean that from Natural Law, it would be perfectly moral to "pry into details" or "keep things" to yourself; it just isn't a "right"


What is the difference between a pastor, a priest, and a minister? No, this is not the start of a joke about a bunch of people walking into a bar.  Rather, I thought it would be helpful to clarify various titles that people give to leadership roles in churches.

Catholic version

Priest The biblical order of presbyters. One who conducts sacrifices

Vicar, a priest who is the bishop's helper
Dean (arch-priest) a priest who is designated by the bishop to oversee a number of parishes
Monsignor, a title given by a Bishop to an exemplary priest.

Pastor The priest who is in charge or a parish, he may have associate pastors - recently ordained priests start as associate pastors.

Minister Ordinary ministers are the bishops, priests and deacons who administer the sacraments to the faithful.  Extraordinary ministers are laypersons appointed by the priest to help in the administration of the sacraments.

Chaplain An ordained person whose vocation is specific to their task (i.e. hospital chaplain, military chaplain etc..) not to a parish.

Preacher Not a specifically Catholic term.

Reverend A title given to any priest deacon or bishop (to varying degrees)

Deacon An ordained person in the order below priests.  Deacons cannot celebrate Mass or administer the sacrament of reconciliation (strictly speaking, they can hear your confession - but they can't do anything about it).  Deacons come in two flavors.  The permanent deaconate (people ordained specifically as helpers to the priests) and transitional deconate (seminarians ordained a few years before their eventual ordination to the priesthood)

Elder Not a specifically Catholic term.

Bishop The successors of the apostles who oversee their diocese or bishopric (in the Eastern Catholic churches). Together with the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, they are the top of the Catholic hierarchy. They are the ones who can confirm with the Holy Spirit (or appoint priests to do so in their stead) and only they can ordain priests.

Primate the Bishop of the first diocese in a nation (the primate of the U.S. is the archbishop of the diocese of Baltimore)
Archbishop a bishop of a larger diocese
Cardinal a title, given by the pope generally to a bishop to serve as an elector of the next pope.


What do Protestants who deny transubstantiation do with the remainders of wine and bread after the Eucharist? What do Protestants who deny transubstantiation do with the remainders of wine and bread after the Eucharist?

For example, in Eastern Orthodox Church, after the liturgy the priest must consume (I mean eat) all remainders of the Body and the Blood of Christ. And is not permitted to leave even some the smallest parts of consecrated bread and wine, or lose some of them or to let fall on the floor some of them.

As I understand, many Protestants do not believe that the wine is real blood and the bread is the real Body of Christ. So, how do Protestant pastors treat such remainders?

You are correct that most Protestants do not see the bread and wine as anything more than symbols.  There is no blessing that is ever attempted to transform the elements into the literal body and blood of Christ.  Consequently, the bread and wine (or juice) that could be stored for long periods of time prior to the observance of the Eucharist (the Lord's Supper) can be stored for long periods of time afterwards.  Additionally, if the bread or wine goes bad or if there is anything left over after an observance, they can be just thrown away.

So, some would ask if the disposing of these elements is irreverent.  To answer that, it should be understood that the elements only serve as symbols during the observance of the Eucharist/Last Supper.  Before and after, they are just regular, ordinary, "garden variety" bread and wine.

It should be noted, though, that there are some Protestant denominations that do hold the bread and wine in high regard.  Some may even subscribe to transubstantiation.  For those denominations, the practice would likely be similar to that of Catholics and Orthodox.


When did the concept of "wine is grape juice" originate? A discussion in chat today has lead me to this question.  Most of us should be familiar with the debate about whether Jesus drank alcoholic wine, or some other form of wine, or simple grape juice.

My question isn't about settling that debate, however.  My question is essentially asking when did the debate begin?  What is the history of "Jesus only drank grape juice" interpretation?

According to this PDF, the theory comes from the idea that the current process of fermentation far exceeds the fermentation process of Jesus time, therefore the concentration of alcohol in the wine must have been so weak compared to wine today, that people started to assume it must have been like grape juice compared to the wine today.

However, the bible does talk about drunkenness, and the only way to get drunk is with alcohol so the wine described in the Bible must have had some alcohol.