"You are dust and to dust you shall return" versus resurrection of the body (Catholic perspective) In the Ash Wednesday mass of the Catholic Church, the priest puts a cross made of ash in the forehead, whilst saying:

  You are dust and to dust you shall return

I understand the literal and (I think) the spiritual meaning of these words. Yet, in both the Apostle's creed and the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed state:

  I believe in ... the resurrection of the body

According to the Catholic Church, how are these two statemets/beliefs reconcilable?

The dilemma is actually resolved in the Old Testament Scriptures.

(St.) Irenaeus of Lyon (130-202) defended against those who objected to the Christian belief of the resurrection of the dead in Book V of Against Heresies, showing how the Christian belief in the resurrection of the dead is supported in the writings of the Prophets.

I think that the passage from Ezekiel 37 is especially relevant.  It is talking about resurrection from bones and not dust, but I think the concepts are affine enough to merit mention.

Your title asks for the "Catholic perspective".  Irenaeus is a respected Church Father, so I think his writings would be considered authoritative in this point (I am Orthodox, not Roman Catholic - anymore - but we share a common early Church tradition).

  Now, that He who at the beginning created man, did promise him a
  second birth after his dissolution into earth, Isaiah thus declares:

    The dead shall rise again, and they who are in the tombs shall arise, and they who are in the earth shall rejoice. For the dew which is from
    You is health to them. (Isaiah 26:19)

  And again:

    I will comfort you,
    and you shall be comforted in Jerusalem: and you shall see, and your
    heart shall rejoice, and your bones shall flourish as the grass; and
    the hand of the Lord shall be known to those who worship Him. (Isaiah
    66:13)

  And Ezekiel speaks as follows:

    And the hand of the Lord came
    upon me, and the Lord led me forth in the Spirit, and set me down in
    the midst of the plain, and this place was full of bones. And He
    caused me to pass by them round about: and, behold, there were many
    upon the surface of the plain very dry. And He said unto me, Son of
    man, can these bones live? And I said, Lord, You who has made them
    knows. And He said unto me, Prophesy upon these bones, and you shall
    say to them, You dry bones, hear the word of the Lord. Thus says the
    Lord to these bones, Behold, I will cause the spirit of life to come
    upon you, and I will lay sinews upon you, and bring up flesh again
    upon you, and I will stretch skin upon you, and will put my Spirit
    into you, and you shall live; and you shall know that I am the Lord.
    And I prophesied as the Lord had commanded me. And it came to pass,
    when I was prophesying, that, behold, an earthquake, and the bones
    were drawn together, each one to its own articulation: and I beheld,
    and, lo, the sinews and flesh were produced upon them, and the skins
    rose upon them round about, but there was no breath in them. And He
    said unto me, Prophesy to the breath, son of man, and say to the
    breath, These things says the Lord, Come from the four winds
    (spiritibus), and breathe upon these dead, that they may live. So I
    prophesied as the Lord had commanded me, and the breath entered into
    them; and they did live, and stood upon their feet, an exceeding great
    gathering. (Ezekiel 37:1, etc.)

  And again he says,

    Thus says the Lord,
    Behold, I will set your graves open, and cause you to come out of your
    graves, and bring you into the land of Israel; and you shall know that
    I am the Lord, when I shall open your sepulchres, that I may bring my
    people again out of the sepulchres: and I will put my Spirit into you,
    and you shall live; and I will place you in your land, and you shall
    know that I am the Lord. I have said, and I will do, says the Lord.
    (Ezekiel 37:12, etc.)

  As we at once perceive that the Creator  is in
  this passage represented as vivifying our dead bodies, and promising
  resurrection to them, and resuscitation from their sepulchres and
  tombs, conferring upon them immortality also (He says, For as the
  tree of life, so shall their days be [Isaiah 65:22]), He is shown to
  be the only God who accomplishes these things, and as Himself the good
  Father, benevolently conferring life upon those who have not life from
  themselves.

  Against Heresies, V.XV.1


Is there any scientific explanation for the Sabbath Year? For six years sow your fields, and for six years prune your vineyards
  and gather their crops.  But in the seventh year the land is to have a
  year of sabbath rest, a sabbath to the Lord. Do not sow your fields or
  prune your vineyards. (Leviticus 25:3-4, NIV)

Is there any scientific reason why God commanded them to let the land take a rest every 7 years? Will it increase the fertility of the land? If so, please provide some scientific research on this.

Whether or not you would consider this as scientific evidence, we only have to look at recent history to find an answer.

The Dust bowl of the 1930's came about because the land was continuously farmed, and the nutrients of the land were depleted to a point that it could no longer support vegetation.

All things need to have their nutrients renewed periodically This is true of the land as well as mankind. Since the Dust bowl farmers routinely allow a portion of their land to go fallow, usually on a field rotational basis. Many even grow crops that leave a residue to be worked back into the ground, such as soy beans and corn.

God in his infinite wisdom knew that anything material would, through the process of aging, deteriorate, and that occasional renewing by the input of new nutrients would be necessary. The renewing of nutrients slows the process of deterioration, whether it is in man or plants or animals or even the land. And that is the reason for God declaring the Sabbath year.

That is also the reason why fertilization is such a necessary component of growing plants whether in your flower garden or on a large farm.

That is incidentally the reason for his declaring a Sabbath day for man.

  Exodus 20:8 KJV Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.

God knew that unless man's awareness of him and his laws was renewed on a frequent basis it would eventually fade from his memory, as we see the World today.

When God put man into the garden of Eden he charged him with caring for it:

  Genesis 2:15  And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

This alone tells me that nature and the land needs our attention, but even further when God ejected man from the garden of Eden he told Adam that his punishment would be:

  Genesis 3:17 through 19  And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Also:

  Genesis 3:23  Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

Since man is essentially dust and needs to replenish himself through eating why would the land be any different?


Why do Jehovah's Witnesses believe that angels are doing the talking between God and mankind? Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the conversations between God and the people are carried out by angels, but the angels are not mentioned in the Bible. They are merely assumed to be present, because no one has seen God. How accurate are the angels as messengers? Is it assumed that the angels carry God's word word-for-word or paraphrasing God's words?

This could probably be a lengthy answer, but it would be better to summarize one core belief, which should easily answer the remainder of your question.

Jehovah's Witnesses believe by a number of scriptural proofs that Christ himself is an angel, the highest ranking one, and he is the primary means that through which the speaking between God and man occur.

Since "angels" are the subject here, there is for instance Jude 1:9 [Amplified Bible]:

  9 But when [even] the archangel Michael, contending with the devil,
  judicially argued (disputed) about the body of Moses, he dared not
  [presume to] bring an abusive condemnation against him, but [simply]
  said, The Lord rebuke you!

This of course is stated on the basis that Jehovah's Witnesses understand that Michael is the same person as "Jesus" (Michael being his pre-earthly angelic name).

Contrast this to how God himself deals with Satan's taunts regarding one of his servants in the first chapters of Job - the reaction is far more authoritative and altogether different. Simply, there is a stark difference between how God (not an angel) and Jesus (an angel) deal with Satan's challenges.

So if Jesus, the "Firstborn of creation" (Proverbs 8:22) is an angel, and he is also called "The Word", the primary means of which God's word is transmitted to us, then that is probably the first and foremost answer to your question.

Then there is Hebrews 2:2:

  2 For if the message given through angels [the Law spoken by them to
  Moses] was authentic and proved sure, and every violation and
  disobedience received an appropriate (just and adequate) penalty,

Without a complicated run-down of every scripture, Jehovah's Witnesses understand that God's angels are very obedient (indeed perfect) and just like human copyists of scripture, have transmitted messages exactly as directed. Of course Jehovah's Witnesses do not put a huge amount of undue attention on angels themselves, and follow the example angels set in directing glory go God alone. Revelation 19:10:

  10 Then I fell prostrate at his feet to worship (to pay divine honors)
  to him, but he [restrained me] and said, Refrain! [You must not do
  that!] I am [only] another servant with you and your brethren who have
  [accepted and hold] the testimony borne by Jesus. Worship God! For the
  substance (essence) of the truth revealed by Jesus is the spirit of
  all prophecy [the vital breath, the inspiration of all inspired
  preaching and interpretation of the divine will and purpose, including
  both mine and yours].

In a looser sense, the word angel also means "Messenger" and indeed many messengers are involved in the transmitting of God's word - including humans in the spreading of the word throughout the earth.

I have no doubt that there is a more complete answer than this to be made, but this is a general overview. Its most important to state that Angels are not the focus of JW beliefs, and they do not receive undue attention.


Was Esau's Birthright also a physical token? I read long ago in the Open Bible as a note, that birth rights were actually a physical carved token that Jacob tricked Esau out of, I guess a registered icon with the powers that be. Is this true? It's never mentioned anyone else.

It seems to make sense to me, as Esau could've lied to this father, even though he swore to Jacob. He couldn't do this if the supposed birthright token was transferred to Jacob.

Perhaps the bible version I read was incorrect... would be interesting to find out for sure.

Probably not. Even in our modern era, there is such a thing as a valid, non-voidable, oral contract, and it is enforceable in a court of law, under certain circumstances. If person "A" promises orally to do something for person "B" or to give something to person "B" in exchange for something else (the technical term being consideration), then the two parties have a legal contract.

This assumes, of course, there is no element of illegality and/or coercion involved in the contract, and that both parties are of sound mind and of a certain age (whatever the age of majority happens to be in the particular jurisdiction). If these things pertain, then the contract is valid and can be enforced legally.

In the biblical narrative to which you allude (viz., Genesis 25:29-34), you'll notice that Jacob, the supplanter or usurper, after famished Esau expressed his willingness to sell his birthright to Jacob in exchange for some stew, said,

  "'First swear to me'; so he swore to him , and sold his birthright to Jacob" (v.33).

The narrative concludes with this thought:

  "Then Jacob gave Esau bread and lentil stew; and he ate and drank, and rose and went on his way. Thus Esau despised his birthright" (v.34).

There was no need for an exchange of a token, or talisman, or "immunity idol" (for you fans of the television show "Survivor") to seal the deal between Jacob and his brother Esau. While in our modern society there is a preference for a contract to be in the form of a writing, an oral contract can still be recognized as valid, just as it was in the days of Jacob and Esau. Despite there being so much at stake in the birthright-for-beans episode, for Esau to swear to his brother obligated him to hew to the deal he had made.

Today, an observant person might object to the deal the twin brothers struck, saying that there was an element of coercion involved on Jacob's part, since Esau was evidently weary and famished, and his brother took advantage of him in his weakened state. That is where other scripture verses indicate Esau's true state of mind.

We've already read in Genesis 25:34 that "Esau despised his birthright." In other words, he did not value it, being as he was a man of appetites as well as an autonomous soul who would rather depend on his skill as a hunter than depend humbly on God to supply his needs. In Hebrews 12, the writer tells us

  "See to it that no one comes short of the grace of God; that no root of bitterness springing up causes trouble, and by it many be defiled; that there be no  immoral (< Gk. pornos, an immoral person) or godless person (< Gk bebeilos, vile, godless, and irreligious) like Esau, who sold his own birthright for a single meal. For you know that even afterwards, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place for repentance, though he sought for it with tears" (vv.15-17; cf. Genesis 27:36).

Before concluding these remarks, I think it appropriate to point out that in Esau's day, the birthright was more than simply a double-portion of goods and chattel (e.g., slaves) which passed from a father to his firstborn son. According to Dr. Anne K. Davis, in her article "Israel's Inheritance: Birthright of the Firstborn Son",

  "The inheritance of the birthright was more than the commonly understood double portion of the father’s possessions. The firstborn also received four additional benefits and responsibilities: a special blessing, the office of high priest to his tribe, a position of leadership and authority, and procreative power—all apparently for the role of leading God’s people. However, the son born to the birthright could lose this special inheritance by failing to develop and exhibit commitment and service to God that are characteristic of priestly service and leadership in battle. When the firstborn sons lost their birthright (Ishmael, Esau, Reuben, and Manasseh), this special inheritance passed on to another son considered worthy of assuming a leadership role and procreative power (Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and Ephraim)."

As we can see from various scriptures, including Malachi 1:2-3, Romans 9:10-13, Genesis 25:23 and 26:34 (where we learn that Esau, against the wishes of his father--see 28:1--took two Hittite women--"daughters of Canaan"--to be his wives), God knew what he was doing when he told Rebekah even before her twins were born that contrary to custom, the firstborn, Esau, would serve the second-born, Jacob. The reason:

  ". . . so that God's purpose according to his choice would stand, not because of works but because of him who calls . . . [is why God said to Rebekah] 'THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER.' Just as it is written, 'JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED'" (Romans 9:11b-13; cf. Malachi 1:2-3).


What vehicle did God use for Jonah to receive this word? The word of the Lord came to Jonah son of Amittai: 2 “Go to the great city of Nineveh and preach against it, because its wickedness has come up before me.”
  3 But Jonah ran away from the Lord and headed for Tarshish. He went down to Joppa, where he found a ship bound for that port. After paying the fare, he went aboard and sailed for Tarshish to flee from the Lord. (Jonah 1:1-3. NIV)

It does not say in the text how the word was delivered to Jonah. Can someone explain to me how he received the word. Was it through a vision, dream or direcly from mouth of God?

Are there any Christian Traditions that explore this subject.

Jonah chapter 4 does not say, but suggests strongly, that God spoke to Jonah audibly while Jonah was awake, so it was not a dream.

  4 But to Jonah this seemed very wrong, and he became angry. 2 He
  prayed to the Lord, “Isn’t this what I said, Lord, when I was still at
  home? That is what I tried to forestall by fleeing to Tarshish. I knew
  that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and
  abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity. 3 Now,
  Lord, take away my life, for it is better for me to die than to live.”

  4 But the Lord replied, “Is it right for you to be angry?”

  5 Jonah had gone out and sat down at a place east of the city. There
  he made himself a shelter, sat in its shade and waited to see what
  would happen to the city. 6 Then the Lord God provided a leafy
  plant and made it grow up over Jonah to give shade for his head to
  ease his discomfort, and Jonah was very happy about the plant. 7 But
  at dawn the next day God provided a worm, which chewed the plant so
  that it withered. 8 When the sun rose, God provided a scorching east
  wind, and the sun blazed on Jonah’s head so that he grew faint. He
  wanted to die, and said, “It would be better for me to die than to
  live.”

  9 But God said to Jonah, “Is it right for you to be angry about the
  plant?”

  “It is,” he said. “And I’m so angry I wish I were dead.”

  10 But the Lord said, “You have been concerned about this plant,
  though you did not tend it or make it grow. It sprang up overnight and
  died overnight. 11 And should I not have concern for the great city of
  Nineveh, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand
  people who cannot tell their right hand from their left—and also many
  animals?”

The evidence is that the Lord caused a miracle - the growth and death of the plant - so the communication was in the phycical realm, not a dream or vision. Certainly Jonah is speaking aloud. There is no mention of a whirlwind, fire, earthquake, smoke, cloud, or other physical phenomena associated with messages received by Moses, Elijah or others. Yet these physical details are give - the hot wind, the sunrise, the tree Jonah is sitting against. Since so many details of the setting are given and no mention of a visible form is described for God, then an auditory event is the most likely. Jonah heard God speak while awake but did not see a vision of Him.

(For completeness, the only other mention of Jonah in the Old Testament is in 2 Kings 14:25, but nothing there seems to shed light on this question.)


What did Jesus mean when he said ‘Go and sin no more’ if sinlessness is impossible? I came across these two instances in the New Testament when Jesus told someone to "sin no more."

  John 13:15 Now the man who had been healed did not know who it was, for Jesus had withdrawn, as there was a crowd in the place. Afterward Jesus found him in the temple and said to him, “See, you are well!  Sin no more,  that nothing worse may happen to you.” The man went away and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had healed him.

The second instance is in the account of the woman taken in the act of adultery.

  John 10:11 Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”

From the standpoint of sinlessness being impossible, what exactly did Jesus mean by saying this?

When you look at Jesus' command in light of the whole law, and other instances where He said similar things (such as "be ye as perfect as your father in heaven"), you realize that while this is a command, it's really just a repetition of all the previous commands given by God over thousands of years.  Jesus' command is just a reaffirmation of what God has been commanding us since the beginning of time - or at least of the law.

In a sense, it appears that God is commanding the impossible.  And one wonders why he would do that.  What does he expect to get from all this commanding.  Well, the truth is that the Law, while good, was never intended to be a guide for how to live one's life.  It's purpose is to convict of sin, "that the whole world might become guilty before him".  Why would he do this?  Because the Law of God is not a guide for living life.  it is not a list of things that you MUST do, it is a list of things that you do NOT do, and in not doing them you have become guilty before God.  The purpose of the Law, again, is not lifestyle guide, but schoolmaster - leading man to the cross of Christ.

Because the plan of salvation depends on the works of Jesus Christ, not man.  Man cannot even contribute to this work, for, "if you will build me an alter, you shall do it with uncarved stone (untouched by man), for in the moment that you lift up your tool upon my altar, you have polluted it."

This plan of salvation makes it possible for men to come to God through Christ, but the condition is that you must first be found guilty, in order to take advantage of the court's mercy (Christ).

Jesus' command to "go and sin no more" is simply a reaffirmation that "God is Holy, and Man is Sinful,... flee the wrath to come".  That once you trust Him for salvation, you will always, and must always continue to trust Him and His work done on your behalf, not in your own works.


What is an overview of teachings of Messianic Jewish Christians regarding circumcision? Statements like the following are common from Messianic Synagogues. This one comes from Beth Messiah in Sarasota, Florida:

  At Beth Messiah, we are Messianic Jews and non-Jews who believe Yeshua (Jesus in Hebrew) is the Messiah, live a Jewish lifestyle, raise our children to be Jewish, and worship the God of Israel in a Jewish manner.  Messianic Judaism is a movement of people from all walks of life who believe that Yeshua is the promised Messiah and the Savior for Israel and the world. Messianic Jews have not stopped being Jewish. On the contrary we have continued to remain strongly Jewish in our identity and lifestyle, and in our belief that Yeshua is the Jewish Messiah and the fulfillment of true Biblical Judaism.

According to the standards of this site these congregations may be considered Christian. In maintaining their Jewish culture and lifestyle, a major historical aspect of which is circumcision, I am curious as to what these congregations teach regarding circumcision, specifically circumcision according to Torah law, in the light of Paul's warning in Galatians 5:1-6:

  It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery. Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.

I wonder if some of these congregations circumcise their children in Torah observance. What is an overview of their doctrines regarding circumcision?

Since the author of the question is seeking a general overview and not the view of specific congregations--I will offer an answer similar to Michael16, which is not itself wrong, but does lack specificity.

Right now there are two major branches of official Messianic Judaism. Those branches are the MJAA and the UMJC.  The former being the body which started first and the later, a breakaway movement, and as such the UMJC is more stringent in their observance, if only in their own view.

A google search of UMJC and Circumcision yields the following link: https://www.google.com/search?q=UMJC+circumcision

The first result (in my search) then becomes immediately relevant: Is Judaism Jewish? Early on (in the third paragraph of said document) the author, one Dr. Mark Kinzer, speaks of the same proof text Michael16 did: 1 Corinthians 7:18, 19. Kinzer states:

  "but keeping the commandments of God." Paul acknowledges with these words that the Torah commands Jews to be circumcised and to keep the mitzvot given to Israel, but expects non-Jews to keep only those commandments given to all human beings. Thus, what matters is not being Jewish or non-Jewish, but obeying those Divine commandments that apply to us.

Since the site bares the markings of the UMJC we can take this as an official position and not one individual congregation.

Next we come to the more lax MJAA.

Putting the terms, MJAA IAMCS Circumcision into a google search bar yielding the following results: https://www.google.com/search?q=MJAA+IAMCS+Circumcision

It should be noted that the results for the second search performed is far fewer than the first for the very reason that the MJAA has a less concrete positon on the matter than does the UMJC.

Quoting from a document among the results:

  The main Jewish life cycle events include circumcision, bar/bat mitzvah, wedding, and death and each of these events have their own set of liturgy and ritual. The first two are pertinent to this  study. In obedience to God’s command to Abraham, Jewish males are circumcised on the  eighth day as a physical sign of the covenant God made with Abraham in Genesis 17:11-12. (Messianic Jewish Liturgical Practices, by Elizabeth Ames, p. 10)

The only other relevant quote comes from Rabbi Jim Appel, a messianic Rabbi from New York whose congregation Shema Yisrael belongs to  the IAMCS.  This becomes relevant because when understanding his quote and how the IAMCS works, he would not be a member of that organization if his beliefs did not match theirs.  (The IAMCS is the governing body of the MJAA.)

A substitute document is Competing Trends In Messianic Judaism: The Debate Over Evangelicalism, which cites congregation Beth Yeshua as a forerunner for the MJAA position (though certainly progressive in its implementation). This article may be the best fit for your desire for an overview of Messianic Judaism as a whole as it does, like I have here done, break the movement into its two constituent bodies.


The Apostle Paul and the doctrine of forgiveness? Alexander the metalworker did me a great deal of harm. The Lord will repay him for what he has done (2 Timothy 4:14).

Forgiveness is central in Christianity with all the great churches.Jesus own words:Forgive them father for they know not what they do.

Here we see the Apostle Paul speaking about "repayment" for harm done to him.
What is the Catholic doctrine on this verse or how one is to understand judgment vs forgiveness in this verse?

In the quoted passage, the Apostle Paul is not writing about paying back Alexander, but that he trusted that justice will be administered by the Lord.  Paul was consistent with Jesus' command to exercise charity, which is defined by current Catholic teaching as:

  CCC 1822 Charity is the theological virtue by which we love God above all things for his own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God.

  1823 Jesus makes charity the new commandment. By loving his own "to the end,"he makes manifest the Father's love which he receives. By loving one another, the disciples imitate the love of Jesus which they themselves receive. Whence Jesus says: "As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you; abide in my love." and again: "This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you." {John 15:12}

When exploring Section III of the Catechism, an extended discourse on living the Christian life (and thus witnessing for Christ), you will find reference to a number of verses in Scripture that point back toward the exercise of Charity.

  Ephesians 4:32
  (And) be kind to one another, compassionate, forgiving one another as God has forgiven you in Christ.

  Luke 17:3-4
  Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.

  Colossians 3:13
  bearing with one another and forgiving one another, if one has a grievance against another; as the Lord has forgiven you, so must you also do.

  Luke 6:37
  Stop judging and you will not be judged. Stop condemning and you will not be condemned. Forgive and you will be forgiven.

  Matthew 18: 21-22
  Then Peter approaching asked him, "Lord, if my brother sins against me, how often must I forgive him? As many as seven times?"  Jesus answered, "I say to you, not seven times but seventy-seven times.

The Church does not confine itself to a single passage in Scripture when addressing the need to forgive one another.  A broad range of scriptural guidance is folded into the teaching that forgiveness is an act of Charity.

Some bullet points from current teaching:

  The seven spiritual works of mercy:

  Counsel the doubtful.
  Instruct the ignorant.
  Admonish sinners.
  Comfort the afflicted.
  Forgive offenses.
  Bear wrongs patiently.
  Pray for the living and the dead.

Part of an explanation of the Lord's Prayer.

  Why do we say “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us”?  CCC 2838-2839; 2862

  By asking God the Father to pardon us, we acknowledge before him that
  we are sinners. At the same time we proclaim his mercy because in his
  Son and through the sacraments “we have redemption, the forgiveness of
  sins” (Colossians 1:14). Still our petition will be answered only if
  we for our part have forgiven first.

The importance of forgiveness

  How is forgiveness possible? CCC 2840-2845; 2862

  Mercy can penetrate our hearts only if we ourselves learn how to forgive – even our enemies.  Now even if it seems impossible for us to satisfy this requirement, the heart that offers itself to the Holy Spirit can, like Christ, love even to love’s extreme; it can turn injury into compassion and transform hurt into intercession.  Forgiveness participates in the divine mercy and is a high-point of Christian prayer.


What is the process for starting a new Christian denomination? There are thousands of Christian denominations. How did these groups form?

What is the typical process for organizing a denomination?

Not to be flip, but it sort of goes like this:

Find some theological point on which you find your existing denomination to be so heretical as to be in grave danger of going to hell.  Assume this point is not aidaphora.
Find a bunch of other people who agree, and start meeting together.
Possibly, ordain yourself (as in the case of Joseph Smith - the founder of the LDS denomination, or Joseph Smythe - traditionally considered the founder of the Baptists) or if you already have been ordained (e.g. Richard Allen, founder of the AME Church after being nearly beaten senseless in his home church or the Episcopalian Church in general after the American Revolution) convince a court that you are not, in fact part of your former denomination.
Start forming more than one church, so that you actually are a group of churches, rather than just a splinter one.

Ultimately, the only two entities that you will probably care about are:

Your home denomination - you don't want them claiming you, right?  Just send them a letter saying you are no longer part of them.  If you publicly repudiate them, so much the better!  The point is simple enough - your adherence to a given church is completely voluntary.  Any way in which you no longer volunteer will suffice.
The IRS.  Here's what most groups in the US care about - the tax exemption.  Truth is, it doesn't actually matter to the IRS either. If you want to call yourself "The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster," you just need to convince the IRS you are church.  If you affiliate with anyone else, it helps, but ultimately, they don't really decide.

Like nations, each denomination is simply a sovereign entity unto itself.  If you try to call yourself "the Roman Catholic Church," there is an entity and an institution that will say, "No you are not."  But if you want to start your own, there is no one to stop you.

In the end, denominations - even highly organized ones - are voluntary associations of like-minded individuals.  There is no authority - in fact, there isn't even an agreed on definition of denominations.  Scholars simply use the label to distinguish like-minded groups from one another.


When did the gathered church stop singing choruses? I read a few years ago, that the early church (1st - 2nd century) would start their gatherings by singing choruses and that this went on for a while, before the rest of the liturgy. Unfortunately, my source is in storage, so I can not give a reference. If anyone can, please provide it.

But my question is really: When did this custom stop? It must have been sometime between the late 2nd century and 5th century. Assuming it was wide spread, I suppose it gradually faded away. Does anyone know of any records of this?

Please note that I ask this question from a church history POV. Post Gregorian worship is not the topic of this question.

Perhaps some early Christians sang choruses at the beginning of worship, but this was not a standard part of the order of worship.
New Testament
From the beginning, worship was centered around the Eucharist.
The New Testament does not contain an order of worship, but Paul mentions worship practices in a few of his letters. He talks about worship songs in two of his letters (see Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16), but he says these are things we should do at all times, not specifically during the weekly gathering. When Paul does speak explicitly of the worship gathering (e.g., 1 Corinthians 11:18-26), he focuses on the Lord's supper.

For, to begin with, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and to some extent I believe it. Indeed, there have to be factions among you, for only so will it become clear who among you are genuine. When you come together, it is not really to eat the Lord's supper. For when the time comes to eat, each of you goes ahead with your own supper, and one goes hungry and another becomes drunk. What! Do you not have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you show contempt for the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What should I say to you? Should I commend you? In this matter I do not commend you!
For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

Second Century
The Didache, a late first or early second century document, gives these instructions for worship:

Chapter 14. Christian Assembly on the Lord's Day. But every Lord's day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one who is at odds with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: "In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations."

The Didache also includes specific prayers to offer before and after taking communion, as well as guidelines for how to act toward itinerant preachers and prophets who speak to the congregation. But it does not mention singing.
Justin Martyr, in his First Apology, describes the typical Christian worship of his day:

CHAPTER LXV -- ADMINISTRATION OF THE SACRAMENTS.
But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to genoito [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.

Again, there is no mention of choruses.
But singing is mentioned in a letter from the Roman governor Pliny the Younger to the Emperor Trajan. Pliny had been investigating an anonymous document that accused local Christians of subversive practices. Upon questioning the Christians, Pliny found the truth was more innocuous.

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food.

Third Century
The Apostolic Tradition a treatise by Hippolytus of Rome, includes several liturgies for worship and church life. The only mention of singing is in chapter 25, following a community dinner.

After the meal they shall get up and pray, and the children shall sing songs, along with
the virgins.

Summary
I have not been able to find solid evidence that singing choruses at the beginning of worship was widely practiced by early Christians.


What is the Biblical basis for the doctrine of the Trinity? The word/term "trinity" is never used in the Bible. However, most Christians believe that God exists as three persons in one God-head.

This question has two parts:

What is the Biblical basis for the doctrine of the Trinity?
Are there any passages that directly show all three persons of God together - and what are they?

While the word Trinity does not occur in scripture, the concept and idea of the Trinity does, if you have eyes to see and ears to hear.  A detailed treatment of the Trinity with linked references can be found on GodAndScience.org.
In the following scriptural quotes, all bold text is my emphasis (in fact, there is no use of italics or bold in scripture), and note I tend to link to the whole chapter so it's easy to see the verses in context).
Fair warning: This going to be long, and even so it is only scratching the surface of an understanding that typically seems to take decades for most Christians to grow into in their understanding of God.  The TL;DR answer begins with the heading for "God is Trinity"
God Is Plural
Let's examine the scriptures to speak to God's plurality, and then see if we can understand the way that one God can also be three.
The first hint you can see is in Genesis 1, at the end of Day 6 when God creates man:

Gen 1:26-27
26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in
our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea
and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,
and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
27 So God created mankind in his own image,     in the image
of God he created them; male and female he created them.

From this passage we could deduce that in some way, God is in some manner plural.  (We can also see that the image of God is both male and female, even though scripture consistently refers to the Godhead in the male gender).
Actually, though it's not obvious from the English, the first indication of plurality in God is in the very first verse in the Hebrew word for God:

The Hebrew word translated "God" is the word El or Elohim. Elohim is
the plural form of El. The plural form is used 2607 of the 2845 times
the word "God" is used in the Old Testament. Not only is the word for
God usually used in the plural form, but several verses refer to God
as "Us"
An example of how the Hebrew word Elohim is used in the plural is that
it is translated "gods" (referring to idols) 235 times in the Old
Testament. It is exactly the same word that is translated "God,"
referring to the Almighty. An example is given below:
"I am the LORD your God [Elohim], who brought you out of the land of
Egypt, out of the house of slavery. "You shall have no other gods
[Elohim] before Me. (Exodus 20:2-3)
Rich Deem (God and Science.org)

The Son is God
There are a huge number of verses in scripture that ascribe the same divine attributes to both the Father and the Son.  But to me, more "obvious" are the scriptures which state Jesus is God, outright.

Mat 1:23
22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”).

John 1 speaks not only to Jesus (the Word) being God, but that all that was created was created through him (Jesus).

John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
...
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
15 (John testified concerning him. He cried out, saying, “This is the one I spoke about when I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’”) 16 Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

And the letter to the Colossians gives us to know that Jesus is fully God, speaking of the risen Lord (notice the present tense):

Col 2:9
9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form

Many more scriptures that speak to the deity of Jesus can be found here.
The Holy Spirit is God
Jesus speaks of the Holy Spirit as a person, on equal footing with himself and his Father:

John 14:25-27
25 “All this I have spoken while still with you. 26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. 27 Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.

(by the way, in case you have ever wondered, this "remind[ing] you of everything I have said to you" is how the disciples recalled and recorded the Gospels so accurately and in such detail; it was through the Holy Spirit.)
And again, in the following chapters:

John 15:26
26 “When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me. 27 And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning.
John 16:12-15
12 “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14 He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. 15 All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.”

For a fuller treatment of the Holy Spirit's deity and person, see here.
God Is One
So, having now seen that there are three persons in this God we serve, why do Christians then claim that there is but one God?  Again, it's because this is what God has revealed in the scriptures:

Deut 6:4-5
4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. 5 Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.

This verse from Deuteronomy is especially interesting because the same plural-form word for God is used: Yahweh Elohim, followed immediately by the declaration that he is one.
In the New Testament, we read:

1 Cor 8:4
4 So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.

Again, more references can be found here.
But God is Trinity
Although the word "trinity" is not used, scripture does seem to teach three distinct persons who are identified as God, such as:

18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.
Mat 28:18-20

So, scripture teaches us that God is both one, and at the same time three.  How can this be?  First you must accept that finite man cannot fully comprehend the nature and being of an infinite God.  The Trinity is a mystery - we can wrestle with it, we can approach it, we can apprehend it in our hearts, but ultimately our mind ends up only loosely understanding, like trying to wrap your mind around the concept of infinity.
Of particular concern is trying to explain God by use of analogy, these always break down, and I have never heard one to even remotely adequate to fully picture of the Trinity as alluded to in scripture (they give us a glimpse, but taken alone the picture is nearly always of a heretical understanding).
I have struggled with the idea of the Trinity all my journey, but recently I read Frank Sheed's Theology and Sanity, which I found very helpful.  He does not attempt to explain by analogy, but describes God as being one nature shared by three persons.  I will end with some quotes from his book (emphasis Sheed's):

The notion is unfortunately widespread that the mystery of the Blessed Trinity is a mystery of mathematics, that is to say, of how one can equal three.  The plain Christian accepts the doctrine of the Trinity; the "advanced" Christian rejects it; but too often what is being accepted by one and rejected by the other is that one equals three.
...
The short statement of the doctrine is, as we have heard it all our lives, that there are three persons in one nature. But if we attach no meaning to the word person, and no meaning to the word nature, then both the nouns have dropped out of our definition, and we are left of with the numbers three and one, and get by as best we can with these.
...
The doctrine may be set out in four statements:

In the one divine nature, there are three persons - the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is not the Father: no one of the persons is the either of the others.

The Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God.

There are not three Gods, but one God.

...
We are not saying three persons in one person, or three natures in one nature; we are saying three persons in one nature.  There is not even the appearance of an arithmetical problem.  It is for us to see what person is and what nature is, and the to consider what meaning there can be in a nature totally possessed by three distinct persons.
...
Nature answers the question what we are; person answers the question who we are.


According to Catholicism, what is wrong with Luther's doctrine of ubiquity? One of John Calvin's arguments against transubstantiation and consubstantiation was that the body of Christ, as a human body, could not be in more than one place at a time.  His view of the Eucharist was thus one of spiritual presence, not real presence as understood by Catholics.

Luther argued that Jesus's body could be in multiple places at one time, thanks to its divine properties, and that this allowed for consubstantiation.  This, as I understand it, is known as Luther's doctrine of ubiquity.  As a Calvinist with relatively little exposure to Catholicism, I assumed that Catholicism took the same approach on this issue, as transubstantiation seems to similarly require a doctrine justifying the idea that Jesus's physical body can be in multiple places at once.

But Ludwig Ott opposes my assumption in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:

  [Luther] explained the possibility of the Real Presence of the body and blood of Christ by the aid of the untenable Ubiquity Doctrine, according to which the human nature of Christ by virtue of the Hypostatic Union, has a real share in the properties of the Deity, and thereby also in the omnipresence of God. [372, emphasis added]

So, I'm wondering—how do Catholics view the distinction between Luther's doctrine of ubiquity and whatever solution Catholicism uses that allows Jesus's physical body to be present in more than one place at one time?  What makes Luther's view "untenable" in their eyes?

(Apologies if the question is crude; I'm no expert on transubstantiation.  If those answering keep that in mind, I'd be grateful!)

From what you've quoted of Ott, it sounds like this "Ubiquity* Doctrine" holds that Christ's human nature is His divine nature. This is the heresy of monophysitism,** which says that Christ only has one nature, not both human and divine natures.

*(ubi- = Latin for "where" or "in what place")**(mono- = one; phys- = nature)

It is not necessary, for explaining how Christ can be substantially present under the Eucharistic species in multiple locations around the world, to think that Christ's human and divine natures are the same. In fact, even some saints have bilocated, and they certainly are not God.

To understand this, we need to first understand the distinction between

substance
accidents ("properties").

The substance of something is its essence, the answer to the question "What/who is it?" Accidents ("properties") inhere in a substance; they are not essential to it, but they cannot exist without it.* For example, my substance is myself, what makes me to be what I am (my particular body and soul). My hair, for example, is an accident, a quality of myself; I am still myself regardless whether I have hair or not, if it is long or short, etc. Another accident of myself is my location. I am still the same substance regardless where I am; viz., it's not essential to myself to be located in a particular place. My size is another accident of myself; I have always been myself even when I was as small as a fetus in my mother's womb or as large as a grown adult.

*(except in transubstantiation, where God miraculously maintains the existence of the accidents of bread and wine without their inhering in the substance of bread and wine, which is replaced by the substance of Christ Himself; cf. the Catechism of the Council of Trent, ch. The Holy Eucharist, § "Three Mysteries Of The Eucharist")

With this understanding, you can follow St. Thomas Aquinas's reasoning when he answers the question "Whether the whole Christ is contained under this sacrament?," Summa Theologica III q. 76 a. 1 ad 3:Some terminology he uses:"dimensive quantity" = e.g., length, breadth, width;"by way of substance" (per modum substantiae) = "substantially";the adverb "locally" (localiter) = "place-ly" or "in the manner of a place (locus)"

  As has been already stated (Question [75], Article 5*), after the consecration of the bread into the body of Christ, or of the wine into His blood, the accidents of both [the bread & wine] remain. From which it is evident that the dimensions of the bread or wine are not changed into the dimensions of the body of Christ, but substance into substance. And so the substance of Christ's body or blood is under this sacrament by the power of the sacrament, but not the dimensions of Christ's body or blood. Hence it is clear that the body of Christ is in this sacrament, and not by way of quantity. But the proper totality of substance is contained indifferently in a small or large quantity; as the whole nature of air in a great or small amount of air, and the whole nature of a man in a big or small individual. Wherefore, after the consecration, the whole substance of Christ's body and blood is contained in this sacrament, just as the whole substance of the bread and wine was contained there before the consecration.

*"Whether the accidents of the bread and wine remain in this sacrament after the change [effected by consecration]?"

Finally, we can understand his answer to what appears to be your question: "Whether Christ's body is in this sacrament as in a place?," in Summa Theologica III q. 76 a. 5 c.:

  As stated above [what I quoted above], Christ's body is in this sacrament not after the proper manner of dimensive quantity, but rather after the manner of substance. But every body occupying a place is in the place according to the manner of dimensive quantity, namely, inasmuch as it is commensurate with the place according to its dimensive quantity. Hence it remains that Christ's body is not in this sacrament as in a place, but after the manner of substance, that is to say, in that way in which substance is contained by dimensions; because the substance of Christ's body succeeds the substance of bread in this sacrament: hence as the substance of bread was not locally under its dimensions, but after the manner of substance, so neither is the substance of Christ's body. Nevertheless the substance of Christ's body is not the subject of those dimensions, as was the substance of the bread: and therefore the substance of the bread was there locally by reason of its dimensions, because it was compared with that place through the medium of its own dimensions; but the substance of Christ's body is compared with that place through the medium of foreign dimensions, so that, on the contrary, the proper dimensions of Christ's body are compared with that place through the medium of substance; which is contrary to the notion of a located body.

  Hence in no way is Christ's body locally in this sacrament.

The reason this may seem obscure is because the question of place or location* is an immensely deep physics concept, like time or infinity. See Catholic physicist and historian of physics Pierre Duhem's magisterial, 10 volume work in the history of medieval physics:

Duhem, Pierre Maurice Marie. Le système du monde: Histoire des doctrines cosmologiques de Platon à Copernic. 10 vols. Paris: A. Hermann, 1913-1959.

Partially translated in:

Duhem, Pierre Maurice Marie. Medieval Cosmology: Theories of Infinity, Place, Time, Void, and the Plurality of Worlds. Edited and translated by Roger Ariew. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985.

see: Part II "Place" pp. 137-291

The medieval physicists' penetrating disputations on place, in part to understand transubstantiation more deeply, laid the foundations for modern physics, as I discuss on History of Science SE.

*(In Latin there are several words for these related concepts: ubi, locus, positio, situs, etc.)


Why do many Protestant congregations not require attendance at services on Christmas and Easter? It came to my attention from living, driving around and listening to Christian radio that many Protestants do not have any services on what Catholics would consider solemnities (Christmas and Easter in particular) and even the most lax Catholic will attend if only to appease their mother.

One of the precepts of the Catholic Church is to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation, another is to receive the Eucharist at least once a year, particularly during Lent. That's why Mass attendance ought to peak around Easter.  But it would seem that some non-catholic congregations in the United States have adopted an opposite position.

If you asked any given pastor what the reasoning behind this is, what might they say?

As far as I'm aware there's no biblical basis for requiring the church to gather at those specific times. For example there's no mention of Jesus' birth being explicitly celebrated as an occasion in Acts as far as I'm aware.

The congregation I belong to used to meet in a school as we didn't have our own building. We felt it was important to give the school caretakers a break at these times, so our church didn't meet during the school holidays (although we were encouraged to visit other churches or arrange other activities).


According to reformed theologians, was Barnabas an Apostle? We usually read the position that there were only 12 Apostles + Paul, and that after the Apostolic era, we have no more Apostles at all. Specially I see this among Reformed theologians.

But how do these theologians explain Acts 14:14 and Acts 14:4, where Barnabas (not one of the twelve and, obviously, not Paul) is called an Apostle? (ἀπόστολοι is the same word used in Matthew 10:2, for example)

  4 But the multitude of the city was divided: and part held with the
  Jews, and part with the apostles.

  [...]

  14 But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this [...]

Note on the verse 4: in the passage's context, we see in verse 1 that only Barnabas and Paul were there at Iconium as Christians in that specific "apostolic" mission, so, when we read verse 4, is clear that "apostles" there are Barnabas and Paul and no one else.

Another interpretation: There is a theological branch that will call them "Apostles of the Holy Spirit", because they were separated by the Holy Spirit in Acts 13:2 pretty much as the twelve were separated by the Lord at Matthew 10:2. Mainly Dispensationalists will hold on this view. And they believe that the Goly Spirit still separating His Apostles today.
A good answer could deal with this view too.

Reformed theologians understand these verses to be using the word "apostle" in a broader sense than is normally used, because of the similarity of the work of the men in that particular context.  Barnabas and Paul's task at that time was similar, and thus both were working as "apostles," that is, as missionaries and evangelists.  Calvin's analysis of Acts 14:4 is typical:

  When Luke calleth Barnabas an apostle together with Paul, he extendeth the signification of the word farther than unto the chief [primary] order which Christ appointed in his Church; like as Paul maketh Andronicus and Junias excellent among the apostles. But if we should speak properly, they were evangelists and not apostles; unless peradventure because Barnabas was made Paul’s fellow in office, we place them both in like degree of office, so may he be truly called an apostle. (source)

Albert Barnes points out that both were "set apart" for missions in the same manner in Acts 13:

  Barnabas is called an apostle because he was sent forth by the church on a particular message (Acts 13:3; compare Acts 14:26), not because he had been chosen to the special work of the apostleship (source)

Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown similarly explain that the word "apostles" is used here to describe Barnabas "not merely as Paul's companion, but in their missionary character."  At that particular time, before Paul's apostolic authority was exercised, the term could be used more generally:

  In no other character had Paul as yet stood forth among his brethren. His distinctively official apostolic authority had as yet no scope for its exercise. And since in the missionary character of his apostleship there was no perceptible, and hardly any real difference—if any at all—between him and Barnabas, why might not our historian, with propriety enough, style them both "apostles," without implying that there was not, and never would be, any difference between the two as apostles? (source)


How do Old-Earth Creationists explain Romans 5:12-19? Old Earth Creationism incorporates evolution, which requires natural selection, which requires death. If death pre-dated Adam, then death pre-dated sin. How then do Old Earth Creationists explain Romans 5:12, which says that death did not pre-date sin?

  Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned. (NIV)

Death through Sin
The idea of "death through sin" in Romans 5:12 refers to Genesis 2:17, where God warns Adam not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The NIV translation of Genesis 2:17 is questionable, so I'm offering four other translations, because the wording is important for understanding the passage:

but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.—Genesis 2:17 (ESV)
but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.—Genesis 2:17 (NASB)
but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.—Genesis 2:17 (NRSV)
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.—Genesis 2:17 (KJV)

The NIV softens this a little, obscuring the fact that the death is meant to occur on the same day:

but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.—Genesis 2:17 (NIV)

What is a Day?
God explicitly says that they will die on the day they eat the fruit. However, they did not physically die before sunset.
There are a couple ways to make sense of this. Either "day" does not mean a 24-hour day here, or "die" does not mean physical death (or both).
Most of the early Christians, using 2 Peter 3:8 ("But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day.") interpreted the "days" of Genesis as 1000-year periods.
For example, second century Christian apologist Justin Martyr wrote in his Dialogue with Trypho, chapter LXXXI:

For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, 'The day of the Lord is as a thousand years,' is connected with this subject.

You can see more examples in my answer to the How old is old earth creationism? question.
What is Death?
The early Christians also frequently understood "death" to mean not dying physically, but being cut off from the eternal life that Christ brings. Paul, in that very same letter to the Romans, uses it this way numerous times:

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.—Romans 6:23 (NRSV)
I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died, and the very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me.—Romans 7:9-10 (NRSV)

as well as in his other letters:

For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.1 Corinthians 1:18 (NRSV)
For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation and brings no regret, but worldly grief produces death.—2 Corinthians 7:10 (NRSV)

We can see this usage immediately following the "thousand years" verse in 2 Peter:

The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance.—2 Peter 3:9 (NRSV)

and in one of the best-known Bible verses:

For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.—John 3:16 (NRSV)

This usage continued in the early church. The Didache (the full Greek title translates to "Teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles by the Twelve Apostles") was a late first or early second Christian document summarizing the doctrines of the early church. It explains the difference between life and death as:

There are two ways, one of life and one of death, but a great difference between the two ways. The way of life, then, is this: First, you shall love God who made you; second, love your neighbor as yourself, and do not do to another what you would not want done to you. And of these sayings the teaching is this: Bless those who curse you, and pray for your enemies, and fast for those who persecute you.—Didache chapter 1
And the way of death is this: First of all it is evil and accursed: murders, adultery, lust, fornication, thefts, idolatries, magic arts, witchcrafts, rape, false witness, hypocrisy, double-heartedness, deceit, haughtiness, depravity, self-will, greediness, filthy talking, jealousy, over-confidence, loftiness, boastfulness; persecutors of the good, hating truth, loving a lie, not knowing a reward for righteousness, not cleaving to good nor to righteous judgment, watching not for that which is good, but for that which is evil; from whom meekness and endurance are far, loving vanities, pursuing revenge, not pitying a poor man, not laboring for the afflicted, not knowing Him Who made them, murderers of children, destroyers of the handiwork of God, turning away from him who is in want, afflicting him who is distressed, advocates of the rich, lawless judges of the poor, utter sinners. Be delivered, children, from all these.—Didache chapter 5

TL;DR
Romans 5:12 is not talking about physical death but spiritual death, i.e., separation from God. That's what sin does; it separates us from God.


Are adult converts to Eastern Orthodoxy required to use their baptismal names outside of church? There seems to be various opinions on this topic. Some say that it is absolutely necessary to completely adopt this new name while others say that it is recommended to use it outside of church but it is not required. Is there any kind of consensus on this in the various branches?

I'm Catholic, not Orthodox but according to this site it is something that should be done but not required
"In placing such great emphasis on this tradition and in expressing our regret that so many converts to the Orthodox Church ignore it"
"It is essential, indeed, that converts take the name of an Orthodox Saint, use it in all circumstances,"
http://orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/orthname.aspx


What evidence does the LDS church forward for the claim that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri? I just recently read that Joseph Smith taught that the Garden of Eden was actually in Jackson County Missouri and not in Mesopotamia.  You can read it on lds.org here.  (Search for "Garden of Eden")

Genesis 2 describes the geology of the Garden of Eden as follows:

  A river flowed out of Eden to water the garden, and there it divided
  and became four rivers. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon. It is
  the one that flowed around the whole land of Havilah, where there is
  gold. 12 And the gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone
  are there. 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon. It is the one
  that flowed around the whole land of Cush. 14 And the name of the
  third river is the Tigris, which flows east of Assyria. And the fourth
  river is the Euphrates.  Genesis 2:10-14 ESV

How, then, does this description fit with the location in Missouri?  Is there a specific location that is identified as being the exact location of the Garden of Eden.  Is there geological evidence of ancient rivers and such?

In addition to the various other roles that Missouri has in LDS history and teachings (see What is the LDS meaning of the New Jerusalem?), it is believed by most to be the location of the Garden of Eden.

The LDS basis for this belief is founded largely on the teachings of Joseph Smith in the context of Doctrine & Covenants section 57 which reads that Jackson County is to be the location of Zion and the New Jerusalem. The section does not explicitly state Jackson County is the location of the Garden of Eden, however statements by Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and others have led to this belief. Due to the unofficial nature of the teaching, not all who follow LDS teachings accept it as absolute truth, for it can be claimed that it was merely an opinion.

To many, the idea that the Garden of Eden is located in Missouri is unbiblical as it does not seem to fit the geographical description of the locale as given in Genesis. John A Widtsoe, 20th Century LDS Apostle and scholar, addressed this issue in his book, "Evidences and Reconciliations" ("http://archive.org/details/evidencesreconci03widt"):

  Despite the apparently specific descriptions given, this clue has not led to the location of the Garden of Eden. Careful scholars have not been able to identify any of the four rivers with certainty. None of the rivers mentioned fits into the lands now known. Since the historically well known names of Euphrates, Assyria, and Ethiopia do not fit into the use of them in the Garden of Eden story, it is more than probable that they are ancient names variously applied in later times. Clearly, these rivers and countries belong to early ages of the world's history, and do not apply to present-day terminology.

Although there is no perfect match for the geography of the Garden of Eden in Missouri, it is my personal opinion that of the geographical locations in the United States, Missouri perhaps is one which would best fit the discriptions. This Map from wikipedia demonstrates the large number of rivers in and around Missouri in general. As Widtsoe mentioned about the earth in as a whole, It is very probable that this area looked much different in the Antediluvian era; variations in river flows could easily account for the geographical descrepancy.


What is an overview of early church opposition to authorities? What is an overview of early church father expressions of opposition against authorities?  I'm looking for things like:

Protests against state-/government-sponsored injustice
Arguments against the legitimacy of a particular government or ruler
Support for actions that disrupt or circumvent a particular government or ruler

I don't expect to find any calls for violence, of course, given the typical understanding of Romans 13 and similar passages.  Instead, example statements that interest me include:

"The Emperor is a cruel, illegitimate ruler, but we must still obey"
"Blessed are those who hide Christians from their persecutors"
"If you have the opportunity, flee from authorities who seek to capture you"
"Disabling a government chariot may not be sinful" (a la The Sound of Music)

I'm interested in an overview of statements that are contained in the extant writings of fathers from the 2nd century through Augustine.

To be clear, the Church Fathers were specifically against rebellion. This being said however, some Church Fathers have in fact rather bluntly suggested that the affairs of the state and the power struggle involved in such activity is often times contrary to the Christian faith.
Tertullian

I owe no duty to the forum, the election-ground, or the senate-house; I keep no obsequious vigil, preoccupy no platforms, hover about no praetorian residences; I am not odorant of the canals, am not adorant of the lattices, am no constant wearer out of benches, no wholesale router of laws, no barking pleader, no judge, no soldier, no king: I have withdrawn from the populace.  My only business is with myself: except that other care I have none, save not to care.1
But as those in whom all ardour in the pursuit of glory and honour is dead, we have no pressing inducement to take part in your public meetings; nor is there aught more entirely foreign to us than affairs of state.2
All the powers and dignities of this world are not only alien to, but enemies of, God; that through them, punishments have been determined against God’s servants; through them, too, penalties prepared for the impious are ignored.3

Origen

We are to despise ingratiating ourselves with kings or any other men, not only if their favour is to be won by murders, licentiousness, or deeds of cruelty, but even if it involves impiety towards God, or any servile expressions of flattery and obsequiousness.4
Celsus also urges us to “take office in the government of the country, if that is required for the maintenance of the laws and the support of religion.” But we recognise in each state the existence of another national organization founded by the Word of God, and we exhort those who are mighty in word and of blameless life to rule over Churches. Those who are ambitious of ruling we reject; but we constrain those who, through excess of modesty, are not easily induced to take a public charge in the Church of God. And those who rule over us well are under the constraining influence of the great King, whom we believe to be the Son of God, God the Word. And if those who govern in the Church, and are called rulers of the divine nation–that is, the Church–rule well, they rule in accordance with the divine commands, and never suffer themselves to be led astray by worldly policy. And it is not for the purpose of escaping public duties that Christians decline public offices, but that they may reserve themselves for a diviner and more necessary service in the Church of God–for the salvation of men. And this service is at once necessary and right. They take charge of all–of those that are within, that they may day by day lead better lives, and of those that are without, that they may come to abound in holy words and in deeds of piety; and that, while thus worshiping God truly, and training up as many as they can in the same way, they may be filled with the word of God and the law of God, and thus be united with the Supreme God through His Son the Word, Wisdom, Truth, and Righteousness, who unites to God all who are resolved to conform their lives in all things to the law of God.5

Clement of Alexandria

Above all, Christians are not allowed to correct with violence the delinquencies of sins. [...] For he that is made good by compulsion of another is not good; for he is not what he is by his own choice.  For it is the freedom of each one that makes true goodness and reveals real wickedness.6

Criticisms of Tertullian
Obviously Tertullian was perhaps the most anti-state mainstream Church Father there was. His teachings also included an anti-military stance, as seen in the following quote:

Inquiry is made about this point, whether a believer may turn himself unto military service, and whether the military may be admitted unto the faith, even the rank and file [...].  But how will a Christian man war, nay, how will he serve even in peace, without a sword, which the Lord has taken away? [...] The Lord afterward, in disarming Peter, unbelted every soldier. No dress is lawful among us, if assigned to any unlawful action.7

It is for this reason among others that, in the influence of St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Thomas Aquinas who both supported the idea of 'just war theory' and the idea that certain acts of violence and control are necessary in order to secure the greater good, Tertullian has not been made a saint by the Church to this day (it should be noted also that Origen as well has not been made a saint by the Church, for similar theologically-based reasons).
Martyrdom of the early Church
All of these examples so far are of sketchy theology alone, but we must also recall that many early Christians expressed an unwillingness to participate in government mandate through their martyrdom. The following are just two examples of the words spoken by certain Church fathers before their martyrdom.
Polycarp

Eighty and six years I have served Him, and He has done me no wrong. How then can I blaspheme my King and Saviour? Bring forth what thou wilt.8

These words were spoken before Polycarp was burned at the stake for refusing to offer incense to the Roman emperor at the time, being Caesar.
Ignatius of Antioch

I write to the Churches, and impress on them all, that I shall willingly die for God, unless ye hinder me.  I beseech of you not to show an unseasonable good-will towards me.  Suffer me to become food for the wild beasts, through whose instrumentality it will be granted me to attain to God.  I am the wheat of God, and let me be ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of Christ.9

Here we see the Church fathers willing to die for God rather than live in order to please the mandates of man. So the nature of rejecting a government's authority (insofar as such means living rather for the Divine Authority) is not only present in several Church father's thoughts but also within the very deeds of the Church fathers.
Augustinian Minimalism
Besides the preceding examples of early Church fathers either stating radically 'anti-state' philosophies and/or directly behaving in contrast to the wishes of government through martyrdom, the more common sentimentality of St. Augustine has also indicated an underlying tension between church and state. St. Augustine proposed and lived according to a politically minimalist view of the government himself, bordering even on a criticism of certain actions of rulers in such indirect ways as the following anecdote:

When [Alexander the Great] asked [a captured pirate] what he meant by infesting the sea, he boldly replied: ‘What do you mean by warring on the whole world. I do my fighting on a ship, and they call me a pirate; you do yours on a large ship, and they call you Commander.10

Augustine's general dislike and distrust of the government stemmed from a theological understanding that is deeply held within Church teaching, namely that the striving for power is an essentially empty journey that leads only to sin and further self-empowerment.

God did not intend that man should have power over his fellow man.11

Augustine's famous book 'The City of God' distinguishes between two cities, namely the City of God and the City of Man. For Augustine, the City of God belongs to those who orient themselves firstly to the Highest Good. The City of Man belongs to those who orient themselves to lesser goods. Augustine firmly believed that often times government power was unjustly thought of and acted upon as the Highest Good. Unlike our system of life today, in which all things are in subjection to the individual's judgement, Augustine lived in a time when anti-theistic philosophers stressed the idea that man's workings in politics and rhetoric were for the common good, and thus for the Highest Good, and more drastically that such practices were nearly outside of the criticisms offered by religion and/or any individual. It is for this reason that St. Augustine, as a truly impassioned and devout Christian man took such a disliking of what we consider to be 'government'.
It is this Augustinian minimalism that has still managed to thrive within Christian politics throughout the long years, and although our roots of 'obedience to government without trust to government' sentiments have perhaps 'dummed down' since we have experienced the blessing of having our morality sanctioned within law itself, it is easy to see where so many of our Church fathers were coming from in their general and sometimes specific dislike of government. It is a dislike that is likely to resurface in the Church in the government-empowered years to come.

Citations:

Tertullian, On the Pallium, Chapter 5. Translated by S. Thelwall. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, page 11.
Tertullian, Apology, Chapter 38. Translated by S. Thelwall. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3, page 45.
Tertullian, On Idolatry, Chapter 18. Translated by S. Thelwall. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3, page 73.
Origen, Against Celsus, Book 8, Chapter 65. Translated by Frederick Crombie. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, page 664.
Origen, Against Celsus, Book 8, Chapter 75. Translated by Frederick Crombie. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, page 668.
Clement of Alexandria, Fragments. Translated by William Wilson. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 2, page 581
Tertullian, On Idolatry, Chapter 19. Translated by S. Thelwall. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3, page 73.
The Martyrdom of Polycarp, Chapter 9. Translated by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, page 41.
Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, Chapter 4 (Shorter version). Translated by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, page 75.
St. Augustine, The City of God, Book 4, Chapter 4 (alternate).
St. Augustine, The City of God, Book 19, Chapter 15 (alternate).

References:

Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1-4. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.)
St. Augustine, The City of God, trans. G. Walsh, D. Zema, G. Monahan, D.
Honan, ed. Vernon J. Bourke (New York: Image Books, 1958), IV:4.


Does the JEDP Theory propose that the Scriptures are not inerrant/inspired? Does the JEDP Theory propose that the Scriptures are not inerrant/inspired?

JEDP is scholarly theory on the history and development of the Scriptures. It focuses on the internal structure of the documents while keeping in mind the context of the writing. The analysis treats them as if they are just like any other texts. The authors' motives, culture, etc are considered.

This means that while analysing the documents, inspiration is not assumed. Traditions about the authorship are ignored or taken as just one input.
This had a significant effect when attempting to date the texts. It is assumed that texts were written after the events they describe. No clear prophesy of historical events.

Note however, that this does necessarily exclude inspiration. There are many textual critics who accept JEDP (or another version) but also accept the inspiration of the Scriptures. They tend to emphasize the inspiration of the process of the development of the document, the writing of the sources, the selection of sources, the redaction of sources.

Pete Enns is one such scholar who as achieved some notoriety professing this view. His blog and more so his books provide an accessible introduction.


According to Jehovah's Witnesses is Jehovah God omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent? In talking to Jehovah's Witnesses I found it difficult to discover what they believed on these three attributes:
Omnipotent - God cannot be thwarted by the Devil, sin, sinners, or the world but is all-powerful in all things.
Omniscient - God knows all things about all things, past, present and future, all the time.  Nothing escapes his knowledge, including our thoughts & motives.
Omnipresent - God is in all places, at all times, in the fullness of his being.  It is not just a bit of God everywhere, but all of God is everywhere all the time.
So he does not need angels or anyone else to inform him of anything anywhere at any time.
What is the Jehovah's Witness belief on these matters?

I will return later to flesh this out and look forward to your requests for clarification
We don’t teach that Jehovah is omnipresent.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102005167
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102011131
We do teach that Jehovah is omniscient.
However when it comes to foreknowledge he does not choose to exercise it in all circumstances.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001549#h=7
We do teach that Jehovah is omnipotent.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1953481
This article is very informative on both omniscience and omnipotence
Below is an excerpt.

Jehovah is also all-knowing, all-wise —omniscient. He can foresee whatever he wishes to foresee. Of him it is said: “There is not a creation that is not manifest to his sight, but all things are naked and openly exposed to the eyes of him with whom we have an accounting.” —Hebrews 4:13.

God’s omnipotence and omniscience make it impossible for him to fail. He always predicts the future accurately. Hence, he could say: “Surely just as I have figured, so it must occur; and just as I have counseled, that is what will come true.” (Isaiah 14:24)


Why is the miracle of raising the dead often noted as being done privately? Elijah takes the widow's son upstairs and later returns the son to the widow downstairs so its assumed she wasn't with him during the miracle.

Peter closes the door of the room as well.

Elisha is also alone with the child.

I recognize there are some cases where the raising was public - particularly when Jesus was involved.  However, I still feel as if there must be a theme and meaning here I'm missing.

Answering from a Charismatic Arminian perspective of Scripture:

This is an aspect of God's Glory being veiled. We see this principle in operation throughout scripture beginning with the expulsion from Eden in Genesis (the Paradise of God being 'veiled' - barred - to mankind, cf. Genesis 3:23-24) through to the exclusion from the New Jerusalem of

  ...dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie. - Revelation 22:15 NKJV

This is one of the principles that lie behind:

  Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces. - Matthew 7:6 NKJV

Why does the Lord veil His Glory in this way? There are two main reasons:

1. God is looking for men and women of faith - veiling His Glory gives scope for faith to be exercised by those who diligently seek Him and press in through and beyond 'the veil'.

  It is the glory of God to conceal a matter,
  But the glory of kings is to search out a matter. - Proverbs 25:2 NKJV

  The Lord is constantly watching everyone, and he gives strength to those who faithfully obey him... - 2 Chronicles 16:9a CEV

  Faith makes us sure of what we hope for and gives us proof of what we cannot see...without faith no one can please God. We must believe that God is real and that he rewards everyone who searches for him. - Hebrews 11:1,6 CEV

Contrast Moses and his attitude to draw close to God versus the Israelites he was leading and their attitude to shrink back from God's presence (cf. Exodus 20:18-21) - the latter had seen many amazing miracles, but rather than draw nearer to the Lord in faith, they kept focusing on problems, grumbling and complaining and hanging back from the God that they feared but did not love; while the former was called a friend of God and encountered the Glory of God to such an extant that his own face shone with the reflected Glory which had to be veiled because the Israelites couldn't bear to look at it either. Referring to this incident, Paul encourages the Corinthian believers that:

  But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. - 2 Corinthians 3:16 NIV

ie it is the inward circumstances of the heart (particularly whether it is believing or unbelieving) that determine what someone 'sees', not the outward circumstances of miraculous signs and wonders.

2. The Lord is merciful, and tends not to give us revelation beyond our capacity to steward appropriately (with consequent judgment for failing to do so).

  20 Then Jesus began to denounce the towns in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. 21 “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades. For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. 24 But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.” - Matthew 11:20-24 NIV

  47 “The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.” - Luke 12:47-48 NIV

  The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. - 2 Peter 3:9 NIV

Peter was a man that received the incredibly significant revelation that Jesus was the Christ (both internally from the Father through the Holy Spirit, together with external corroboration on the mount of Transfiguration), but he initially wasn't equipped to steward this revelation effectively - he needed to be sifted and effectively broken (somewhat akin to Jacob's identity changing encounter with the Lord at Peniel - cf. Genesis 32), before he was ready to respond appropriately to what had been revealed to him.

Contrast Peter's faith journey with that of Ananias and Sapphira or Simon the Sorceror who you can see as people who were caught up in the excitement of God doing great things (through the believer's extravagant giving and the outpouring of the Spirit on the Samaritans), and wanting 'a piece of the action', but failing in their attempts and being judged, because their focus on the outward mechanics of what was happening around them was no remedy against the unbelief and consequent self-focus that was in their hearts.

Similarly - and I believe of most relevance to the cases you're referring to - the situation in Acts 19:13-17 with the sons of Sceva is another example of people who focused on the outward mechanics (using the name of Jesus) and neglected the interior necessity of faith (in the one whose name was being used) with drastic consequences.

Now given this background, imagine if you will, an average person's response to seeing a manifestation of God's Glory through someone being raised from the dead without previously cultivating a heart to diligently seek God as per Hebrews 11:6, they like pre-sifted Peter will want to camp in the Glory, grab a piece of the action like Ananias and Sapphira or Simon Magus, or focus on the mechanics like the sons of Sceva and try to reproduce the same results without undergoing the necessary refinement of faith. It will only bring them judgment not blessing.

This is why in today's age most of the more notable miracles such as the dead being raised, the blind seeing, the deaf hearing, the lame walking etc. are happening in the 'third world' amongst people of sincere and desperate faith rather than those from 'developed' nations with their modern medicine who are largely rich and in need of nothing (cf Revelation 3:17). In particular, those who have developed theologies to explain the lack of miracles they see are largely shielded by the providence of God from witnessing outbreaks of His Glory in this manner as they are ill-equipped to deal with them - they would be at risk of adding to their unbelief the faith-(what measure they have)-shipwrecking-sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit.

edit: A further excellent reason is suggested through comment and I include it as well: Even though God does sometimes (nearly always? - cf. Amos 3:7) use human agents as part of the process of working His mighty works amongst us, it is right and proper for those human agents to downplay and even obscure their own part in the process in order that all honour and praise goes to the only One worthy of it. This particular aspect of veiling the Glory was not necessary of course in Jesus' case as he could say quite frankly:

  that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him. - John 5:23 NIV


Has a slave served as a priest? In a recent sermon on Ephesians 6.5-9, the possibility was raised of a slave being a priest/pastor/bishop with authority over his earthly master. I couldn't think of an example from Church history.

What examples are there in Church History (ancient or modern) of a priest or equivalent who was a slave at the time of their serving?

Also, are there relevant canons (Roman or Orthodox) about this situation?

Has a slave served as a priest?

Geremia does a great job in demonstrating that a being a slave is a serious impediment to being ordained.

Nevertheless the Church does have examples of ex-slaves being ordained priests and even consecrated bishops and eventually canonized a saint. The following are a few examples:

St. Patrick
Servant of God, Fr. Augustus Tolton

There is saint who vowed to become a slave of slaves:

St. Peter Claver, Apostle of Slaves

There are Religious Orders for the redemption and freedom of slaves:

Order of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Mercy
Order of the Most Holy Trinity for the Redemption of Captives

However according to the Orthodox, St. Paulinus volunteered to become a slave by taking the place of another:

  When the Vandal barbarians invaded Italy and carried off many people to Africa in captivity, Saint Paulinus used church funds to ransom the captives. However, he did not have enough money to ransom the son of a certain poor widow from slavery in the household of the Prince of the Vandals. So, he volunteered to take his place. Dressed as a slave, Saint Paulinus began to serve the Vandal prince as a gardener. - St. Paulinus the Merciful the Bishop of Nola

St. Paulinus of Nola is also a saint in the Catholic Church. However Wikipedia makes this story a legend:

  Gregory the Great recounts a popular story that alleges that when the Vandals raided Campania, a poor widow came to Paulinus for help when her only son had been carried off by the son-in-law of the Vandal king. Having exhausted his resources in ransoming other captives, Paulinus said, "Such as I have I give thee", and went to Africa to exchange places with the widow's son. There Paulinus was accepted in place of the widow's son, and employed as gardener. After a time the king found out that his son-in-law's slave was the great Bishop of Nola. He at once set him free, granting him also the freedom of all the captive townsmen of Nola. According to Pope Benedict XVI, "...the historical truth of this episode is disputed, but the figure of a Bishop with a great heart who knew how to make himself close to his people in the sorrowful trials of the barbarian invasions lives on."


According to Preterism is the land mentioned in Ezekiel 37:25 "Heaven"? NIV Ezekiel 37:
24 My servant David will be king over them, and they will all have
one shepherd. They will follow my laws and be careful to keep my
decrees. 25 They will live in the land I gave to my servant Jacob, the
land where your ancestors lived. They and their children and their
children’s children will live there forever, and David my servant will
be their prince forever.

And are the "laws" the Torah?

Preterist often see a spiritual fulfillment of Ezekiel 37. Preterist Don Preston writes;

  Paul, who preached nothing but the hope of Israel, wrote to the church at Corinth (comprised of members of the remnant of Israel) and he said, “you are the temple of God, as it is written” (my emphasis). He then quoted– verbatim!!– from Ezekiel 37:26! So, for Paul, Ezekiel 37 was being fulfilled in the body of Christ in the first century. It is prima facie false therefore, to claim that Ezekiel did not begin to be fulfilled until 1948.

https://donkpreston.com/was-the-restoration-of-israel-in-1948-prophetically-significant/