What is the storyline order of the Bible? I purposefully asked, "what is the storyline order of the Bible", because I don't want to know the order that the books were written in (which is chronological, I'm pretty sure.)

What I want to see is a list of the books of the Bible in order from the beginning of the Bible's story to the end. The first part of the story is obviously Genesis, and the end of the story is probably Revelation. Books that overlap stories, such as the Gospels, I think should be put on the same line. Like this:

Genesis

Etc.

Mathew, Mark, Luke, John,

Etc,

Revelation.

Thank you. The best answer would have a short overview of each book, such as,

"Genesis: an account of Creation to the death of Joseph."

There are plenty of timelines of the Bible. I didn't find anything exactly matching your requirements, so here is a brief overview. Be aware that much of the Bible is not narrative, and there is not necessarily a 'historical order' to all of it. Note that I am assuming the common Protestant/Catholic ordering of the books.

Old Testament

Genesis - Judges History and prehistory of the Israelite nation, up until the founding of the Kingdom of Israel. Historically they are in the order they appear in the Bible
Ruth A side-story, contemporary with Judges
1 & 2 Samuel, 1& 2 Kings. History of the Kingdoms of Israel, in the order in which they appear, up until the Exile of the Israelites
1 & 2 Chronicles A retelling of the events of Samuel and Kings.
Esther takes place during the Exile
Ezra and Nehemiah are stories of the re-establishment of the Kingdoms of Israel after the Exile
Job is difficult to place in the timeline, and doesn't relate to the histories.
Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs are 'wisdom literature' and not narrative and don't really have a place in the timeline. Much of Psalms is traditionally attributed to King David, and the others to his son Solomon, which would relate them to the time of Samuel and Kings.
Isaiah, Jeremiah and Lamentations are books of prophecy and not mainly narrative. They relate to the late period of the Kingdoms of Israel, before the Exile.
Ezekiel and Daniel are similar prophetic books relating to the Exile period.
The remaining books of the Old Testament are also prophetic, mainly relating to the last period of the Kingdoms of Israel.

New Testament

All New Testament events take place several hundred years after the last events recorded in the Old Testament.

The Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) are different tellings of Jesus' life story
Acts picks up the story after Jesus' resurrection
The remaining books are not narrative. They are all letters, except...
Revelation, which is again prophecy. It can be reasonably assumed that all the events described did/will take place after the end of Acts.


Who symbolizes Christ in J. R. R. Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings"? I have long been a fan of J. R. R. Tolkien, and have enjoyed his works from an early age.  I am aware that he was raised by a Roman Catholic priest, and remained a deeply religious man his whole life.

I'm wanting to pin down some of the major christian symbols and undertones in his works that are a byproduct of his Catholic world view. I would particularly like to know who or what symbolizes Christ in The Lord of the Rings.

Tolkien always denied that The Lord of the Rings was an allegory, let alone a Christian allegory. While many people have searched for Christian symbolism, the author did not intend that there should be any. Specifically there is no character who corresponds to Christ. There are of course strong themes of good and evil, of destiny and of guiding and creating spirits, sacrifice and nobility.


Are devotional materials in Slavic-speaking Orthodox countries typically translated today? When rereading the Russian classic The Way of the Pilgrim, I was somewhat surprised to come across a passage which implied that a pocket copy of the Gospels intended for personal devotional reading was in Church Slavonic rather than Russian. This got me wondering what the contemporary practice of the Russian Orthodox church and other churches which use the Church Slavonic liturgy is. Specifically, which of the following are likely to be in Church Slavonic, and which are likely to be translated into a modern version of the local language?

Bibles for personal reading
Memorized, customary prayers like the Our Father and It Is Truly Meet
Prayer books, psalters, akathists, and other things intended for private prayer but not typically memorized
Saints' lives, the Philokalia, the patericon, and other educational books

(I'm not aware of any Slavic-speaking Orthodox community that uses a contemporary language for the liturgy itself, but I'd be curious if there is an exception to that.)

In Russia, Bibles for personal reading are in Russian. One have to search to find it in Church Slavonic.

Memorized prayers are in Church Slavonic.

Prayer books, akathists are in Church Slavonic though there are some with translation to Russian. At least one 20th century akathist that I know was written in Russian.

Living of the Saints, Philokalia and other books are in Russian.

In some churches after reading of the Gospel at the Liturgy in Church Slavonic, it is repeated in Russian.

Also, when I read some 19th century writings, for example, the letters of St. Ambrose of Optina, he cites Philokalia in Church Slavonic, while in modern books almost always citation is in Russian, sometimes Gospel citations are in Church Slavonic but very rarely.


Is there a special name for the day between Easter and Good Friday? I have always called it Sad Saturday in an effort to highlight the despair the disciples must have felt after seeing their Lord killed.

This answer covers a lot of those days in there (most clearly come from Catholic tradition), but only refers to the Saturday between Good Friday and Easter as the last day of the Holy Triduum.

Is there a special name, from any tradition, for the day between Easter and Good Friday?

Liturgy Brisbane calls it "Holy Saturday."
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, it is a day of both joy and sadness, and "in the early Church this was the only Saturday on which fasting was permitted, and the fast was one of special severity. Dating from the time of St. Irenaeus, an absolute fast from every kind of food was observed for the forty hours preceding the feast of Easter."
The names for the full week:

Passion Sunday (Palm Sunday)
Monday of Holy Week
Tuesday of Holy Week
Wednesday of Holy Week
Thursday of Holy Week (also called Maundy Thursday in reference to Jesus' command to wash each other's feet)
Good Friday
Holy Saturday

The days following Easter Sunday are called Easter Monday, Easter Tuesday and so on through to Easter Saturday, which is 6 days after Easter Sunday
The Sundays of the Easter Season are named the Second Sunday of Easter, etc, not after Easter as in the past, because they fall with in the 50-day Season of Easter.
(Liturgy Brisbane)


Pre-Vatican II guidelines for vestments I am looking for Pre-Vatican II sources of guidelines (norms) for vestment making, including their traditional guidelines for lining colors for the priestly vestments that priests wear at the altar, as well as what color of orphreys* are permitted on the vestments, etc.

For example, I believe that it was tradition that sliver was the only color that was allowed to adorn black vestments prior to Vatican II?

Any sources would be greatly appreciated.

*The OED defines "orphrey" as "2. Christian Church. A usually richly embroidered ornamental border, band, or panel on a liturgical vestment, altar frontal, etc."

See the bibliography (pp. 222-223) of:

McCloud, Henry J. 1948. Clerical dress and insignia of the Roman Catholic Church. Milwaukee: Bruce Pub. Co.

Most of the references therein are on the liturgy, but there are a few specifically related to vestments, e.g., Nainfa's Costume of Prelates of the Catholic Church (1926) p. 35 says:

Since the seventeenth century, black is the obligatory color for the clothing of the secular clergy of second rank in all the Western church.
[…]
     Prelates, Bishops and the members of the Sacred College also use black for their everyday costume (and their street-dress in Catholic countries); but their black dress is trimmed with red or purple, according to their rank in the hierarchy, and the different seasons of the ecclesiastical year, as will be explained further on.

Searching that book for "trimmed with", you will find several results for the color trimmings used for the vestments of clergy of various ranks or religious orders.


A question on Cohabitation My question is regarding cohabitation of man and women prior marriage.

According to the Catholic Church what is the formal position on this? Acceptable or not?

References would be much appreciated.

Also interested in the Anglican perspective.

Also, if an unmarried (or married) women was cohabiting with unmarried men (not engaging in sexual acts but mearly residing with them for a time)...what would be the Catholic position on this? (This hypothetical scenario vice versa also).

Concubinage/cohabitation is a sin because, among other reasons, it

belittles the sacrament of marriage.
gives scandal.
places one in the occasion of sin to fornicate.

cf. McHugh & Callan's Moral Theology "2527. Forms of Fornication." (c):

  (c) Free love is fornication committed with one's concubine, that is, with a woman who is not a public harlot but who has contracted with one man for habitual sexual intercourse as if they were man and wife. According to reports, this is quite common in Europe, where lawful marriage is very often preceded by free unions. The trial marriage advocated by some in this country, in which paramours agree to live together as husband and wife for a certain term of years or at pleasure, also falls under the category of concubinage. This sin is worse than mere whoremongering in one respect, namely, that it includes the purpose to continue in the state of sin, at least for a certain length of time. Moreover, there is often the public scandal and contempt for public opinion which other kinds of fornication may be free from. One who practises concubinage is living in a proximate occasion of sin, and hence he cannot be absolved unless he dismisses the concubine, if they cohabit, or agrees to keep away from her, if they do not cohabit.


According to Calvinists, how could Adam and Eve fall? How could Satan fall? Under Calvinism, men under grace are guaranteed to choose God and be saved.

If God's holy influence is so convincing, that it is impossible for free thinking creations to choose against it, why did something go wrong in the first place?

One prominent Reformed theologian, Louis Berkhof, has written that "[t]he problem of the origin of the evil that is in the world has always been considered as one of the profoundest problems of philosophy and theology." Other Reformed theologians share this assessment.  Charles Hodge suggests that given "the feebleness of our powers" and the "limited range of our vision" that it would be reasonable to "leave this question to be answered by God himself."2 Nonetheless, to answer what he sees as false doctrines, Hodge and others strive to provide an explanation.

We should note that this question is closely related to the general problem of the existence of evil.  I will attempt to focus on the specific questions asked, regarding the fall of Adam and Eve and the demons.

Reformed theologians make several points: 1) that God is not the author of evil, 2) God's creation was good, 3) that Man and demons sinned voluntarily, and 4) God ordained that sin would come into the world.

God is not the author of evil

The first point emphasized is that God cannot be considered the author of evil.  Wayne Grudem writes that "we must clearly affirm that God himself did not sin, and God is not to be blamed for sin."3 Among the many passages cited in defense of this statement is Deuteronomy 32:4:

  The Rock, his work is perfect, for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and upright is he. (ESV)

Berkhof writes that we cannot "make God the cause of sin in the sense of being its responsible author.  This idea is clearly excluded by Scripture."4

Creation was originally good

Berkhof takes time to explain the original states of the angels and of men.  Citing Genesis 1:31, "God saw everything that He had made and, behold, it was very good," Berkhof argues that angels had an "original good condition," and notes that the good angels are called "elect" in 1 Timothy 5:21.  These, he says, must have received a "special grace of perseverance," which the fallen angels did not receive.5

Regarding man's original state, Berkhof calls it one of "relative perfection," like a child compared to an adult, "destined to reach a higher degree of perfection in the way of obedience." He was endowed with "original righteousness," but he "could lose it and still remain man."6 This original righteousness, according to Hodge, comes from man being created in God's image, and "includes not only his rational nature, but also knowledge, righteousness, and holiness."7

Covenant of Works vs. Covenant of Grace

One thing worth noting here is that prior to the Fall, Reformed theologians teach that Adam and Eve lived under a Covenant of Works, that is, a Covenant under which they were required to perfectly obey the law.  The punishment for failure was (obviously) death, but the reward for obedience was eternal life. Under this Covenant of Works, says Berkhof,

  [Adam] was not yet raised above the possibility of erring, sinning, and dying.  He was not yet in possession of the highest degree of holiness, nor did he enjoy life in all its fulness.  The image of God in man was still limited by the possibility of man's sinning against God, changing from good to evil, and becoming subject to the power of death.8

However, the reward for obedience in the Covenant of Works was eternal life.  Berkhof calls the time before the Fall a period of "probation, in order to determine whether he would willingly subject his will to the will of God."8  If Adam had obeyed, he and his descendants would have obtained eternal life.

God's relation to Adam under the Covenant of Works is different, therefore, from his relation to mankind under the post-Fall Covenant of Grace, which God made with sinners.  In the Covenant of Grace, say the Reformed, there are elect and non-elect, and the elect are predestined to receive grace ("irresistible grace"). Thus, Adam being "elect" under the Covenant of Grace would only make sense after the Fall.

Man and demons sinned voluntarily

Turning then to Adam's sin, Berkhof says that Adam's transgression was "a perfectly voluntary act on the part of man."9  Explaining God's command to not eat from the tree, Berkhof writes:

  [I]n order that the test of Adam might be a test of pure obedience, God deemed it necessary to add to the commandments of which Adam perceived the naturalness and reasonableness, a commandment which was in a certain sense arbitrary and indifferent.  Thus the demands of the law were, so to say, concentrated on a single point.  The great question that had to be settled was, whether man would obey God implicitly or follow the guidance of his own judgment.8

Other reformed theologians are also quick to state that man and fallen angels sinned voluntarily.  Hodge says that Adam's sinfulness was "self-acquired," and that the fallen angels "kept not their first estate."10 Grudem writes:

  It was man who sinned, and it was angels who sinned, and in both cases they did so by willful, voluntary choice.3

God ordained sin

In light of the previous points, it may seem surprising that Reformed authors continue by saying that God ordained sin to come into the world.  Grudem, citing Ephesians 1:11 and Daniel 4:35, writes that God

  did ordain that sin would come into the world, even though he does not delight in it and even though he ordained that it would come about through the voluntary choices of moral creatures.3

The natural follow-up question to this is, "why?," which gets into the general problem of evil.  I'll briefly mention, however, Hodge's answer to this question.  He argues that the glory of God is the ultimate purpose of creation, and that "there could be no manifestation of his mercy without misery, or of his grace and justice, if there were no sin."11 Citing Romans 9:22-23, where Paul discusses God's creation of vessels of wrath and vessels of mercy, Hodge concludes:

  Sin, therefore, according the Scriptures, is permitted, that the justice of God may be known in its punishment, and his grace in its forgiveness.  And the universe, without the knowledge of these attributes, would be like the earth without the light of the sun.11

Conclusion

Ultimately, Reformed theologians admit the difficulty of the problem, but hold these points as the clear teaching of Scripture and thus accept them.  Hodge recommends that we "rest satisfied with the simple statements of the Bible" and "with the assurance that the Judge of all the earth must do right."2 Similarly, John Calvin closes his treatment of the problem of evil by saying that "[o]ur true wisdom is to embrace with meek docility, and without reservation, whatever the Holy Scriptures, have delivered."12

References:

Berkhof, Systematic Theology
Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion
Grudem, Systematic Theology
Hodge, Systematic Theology

Berkhof, 2.2.1, page 219
Hodge, 1.5.13, page 430
Grudem, page 492
Berkhof, 2.2.1, page 220
Berkhof, 1.2.4, page 145
Berkhof, 2.1.3, page 209
Hodge, 2.5.3, page 102
Berkhof, 2.1.4.C, pages 215-17
Berkhof, 2.2.1, page 221
Hodge, 2.5.6, page 113
Hodge, 1.5.13, page 435
Calvin, 1.18.4


In the LDS church what is the process of calling a new prophet? The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints was originally founded by Joseph Smith believed to be a prophet of God. After his death he was followed by Brigham Young and after Brighams death it was followed by John Taylor.

This pattern of a prophet dying and then a new one being called appears to be repeated again and again in the LDS church.

What is the usual process that is followed for calling a new prophet?

How is the decision made and by whom?

Were there any prophets called by a different process or unusual circumstances?

The Church had been initially organized in 1830 with Joseph Smith as the first Elder and Oliver Cowdery as the second. In 1832, Joseph Smith organized a First Presidency and appointed two counselors. One of these was Sidney Rigdon, The other was excommunicated in 1833 and his replacement disappeared about 1837. Oliver Cowdery had been appointed Assistant President; when he was excommunicated in 1838, Joseph Smith's brother Hyrum Smith was appointed to the position. Other counselors had been appointed, but most of these had either died or left the church.

Following the death of Joseph Smith, it was not entirely clear who should lead  the church. One of the two principal claimants at a Church conference called within a few months was Sidney Rigdon, who made a claim based on his long service as counselor to and spokesman for Joseph Smith, although he had become somewhat disassociated from the main body of the Church. The other was Brigham Young, who claimed that the office of leadership should have gone to Hyrum Smith who had been killed along with Joseph, but that the next highest authority was the Twelve apostles, of which he was the senior and president. The conference accepted the leadership of the apostles, and rejected that of Sidney Rigdon.  Three years later, in 1847 after returning from the pioneering expedition to the Salt Lake Valley to Iowa where most of the members of the Church were in temporary quarters, Brigham Young proposed reorganization of the First Presidency, with himself as the President of the Church.

Since that time, established practice and doctrine has it that the President of the Church is the supreme authority in the Church, below Christ himself. He is assisted by two (or occasionally more) counselors whom he selects. These form a First Presidency and are the highest governing body.

The next highest body is the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. These are sustained and accepted by members of the Church as "Prophets, Seers, and Revelators" when they are called and ordained as apostles.

When a President of the church dies, the First Presidency is dissolved and the counselors resume whatever position they had prior to their call to the First Presidency. They have almost always been apostles and members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, but there have been a few exceptions. This quorum is then the interim highest governing body, until such time as they, after prayer and by revelation, decide to reorganize the First Presidency. The man chosen as President of the Church has always been the senior living apostle (as determined by continuous length of service). It would be a major departure from the established order for anyone else to be named.


Does the nature of God's love for us include what we humans would call "constant, strong, and genuine affection"? (Catholic) I know that God "loves" me, but does the nature of God's love include what we humans would call "a constant, strong, and genuine affection"?

I am asking this because in Catholic church, God's love is "caritas". "caritas" is love that is in will that is not dependent on emotion. And I am having a problem with it. I take "caritas" as love without genuine affection towards its recipients, a.k.a. "cold love".
Like, I sometimes hear Christians saying "I love my neighbour, but I don't like them"; they perform various acts of charity for their neighbours, but they don't like their neighbour. They do acts of charity in their commitment to keep the commandments, but if there is no commandments, they would rather not carry out the charity for their neighbours. In terms of "caritas", such Christian do love his neighbour through his action, yet such love is love without genuine affection towards its recipients. I would call it "a cold love"; I also feel that such love is a fake love - love missing its essence. And sometimes I do wonder if God's love for me ("caritas") is, in fact, a cold love.

so my question is:

I do know that God "loves" me, but does the nature of God's love include what we would call "a constant, strong, and genuine affection"? (I know that God doesn't experience emotions like affection, but I am wondering if the nature of God's love for me includes what we humans would call "a constant, strong, and genuine affection" )

Please answer according to Catholic understanding of God's love.

The Catechism says

  God's love for Israel is compared to a father's love for his son. His love for his people is stronger than a mother's for her children. God loves his people more than a bridegroom his beloved; his love will be victorious over even the worst infidelities and will extend to his most precious gift: "God so loved the world that he gave his only Son."

  Jn 3:16; cf. Hos 11:1; Is 49:14-15, 62:4-5; Ezek 16; Hos 11

  The hierarchy of creatures is expressed by the order of the "six days", from the less perfect to the more perfect. God loves all his creatures and takes care of each one, even the sparrow. Nevertheless, Jesus said: "You are of more value than many sparrows", or again: "of how much more value is a man than a sheep!"

  Lk 12:6-7; Mt 12:12

  God who created man out of love also calls him to love the fundamental and innate vocation of every human being. For man is created in the image and likeness of God who is himself love. Since God created him man and woman, their mutual love becomes an image of the absolute and unfailing love with which God loves man.

  Cf. Gen 1:27; 1 Jn 4:8, 16.

Those references describe what seems to me to be a "constant, strong and genuine affection".


Historically, what would happen if a church could not afford or provide wine for the sake of the Eucharist? I assume that at some point in the 2000 year history, there were churches that found it hard to obtain wine at some point. What did the church teach could or should be done in these situations?

You question is based on a few assumptions, let's go over them:
First, a Catholic eucharist can't just use any wine. There are strict rules for its origin and production laid down by the Vatican. Essentially, sacramental wine has to be:

Made naturally, “from the fruit of the grape, pure and incorrupt”—though raisins are also permissible.
Not mixed with other substances, though a small quantity of water is mixed in during the ritual
not turned into vinegar or soured

It is altogether forbidden to use wine of doubtful authenticity or provenance.
Strangely, sacramental wine can actually be red or white, dry or sweet, even fortified, as long as the source of fortification is also grape-derived, and as long as the ABV stays between 5 and 18%.
Once it’s approved by a bishop of the vineyard’s diocese, it can be labelled “sacramental”.
Second, not all Catholic churches, now or in history, serve wine to the laity during (every weekly) Eucharist. The rule governing the minimum frequency of receiving communion nowadays is based on Canon 920, based on the Pio-Benedictine Code (1917 CIC 859), which in turn rested on legislation going back several centuries at least to the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215.
Third, during epidemic periods in history, the consumption of wine (and in some cases also bread) was taken out of the ritual. An example of this is the 1547 Sacrament Act, introduced after the plague, which requires both bread and wine to be given “except necessity otherwise require”. This and similar rules have also recently been invoked by churches as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The inverse (preferential exemption) has also occurred. During prohibition, consumption of Christian sacramental wine was exempted from prohibition laws, while -for example- Jewish kiddush was not.
Lastly, the relevance of consumption from the perspective of the laity has also declined in the last century or so. According to a recent Pew Research survey, the majority (69%) of Catholics in the US believe that the bread and wine of the Eucharist are merely symbolic and not transubstantiated, the very belief which makes the consumption essential to the ritual. Maintained belief in transubstantiation is highest in the oldest living generations (38% compared to the average 29%).


Does Catholicism teach that Trinity is reflected in Man? This question is highly related to, but not exactly a duplicate of

Does Roman Catholicism teach that man is body and soul (bipartite) or body, soul, and spirit (tripartite)?

The answer to the linked question states a bipartite union:

  according to Catholic teaching, man's one nature is the union of spirit and matter, soul and body.

Genesis 1:27 says:

  God created man in his own image

If God is three persons, shouldn't that mean that man is tripartite as well? Or at least that the Trinity of God is somehow reflected in man? Does Catholic literature discuss this anywhere?

This question comes from the personal experience of having three contradictory wills: the desires of the body, emotional wishes, and what the mind considers right.

St. Thomas Aquinas discusses the question "Whether in creatures is necessarily found a trace of the Trinity?" in his Summa Theologica I q. 45 a. 7. He writes:

  …the processions of the divine Persons are referred to the acts of intellect and will, as was said above (q. 27). For the Son proceeds as the word of the intellect; and the Holy Ghost proceeds as love of the will. Therefore in rational creatures, possessing intellect and will, there is found the representation of the Trinity by way of image, inasmuch as there is found in them the word conceived, and the love proceeding.


According to Catholic teaching, does sin disfigure? According to Catholic teaching perhaps with support from scripture, does sin disfigure/deform the sinner?

And does such a disfiguration affect both body and soul? Is so, in what way?

Catechism of the Catholic Church

The Image of God

  1701 "Christ, . . . in the very revelation of the mystery of the
  Father and of his love, makes man fully manifest to himself and brings
  to light his exalted vocation." It is in Christ, "the image of the
  invisible God," that man has been created "in the image and likeness"
  of the Creator. It is in Christ, Redeemer and Savior, that the divine
  image, disfigured in man by the first sin, has been restored to its
  original beauty and ennobled by the grace of God.

The emphasis in this passage is mine. The catechism says that the divine image in man is disfigured by original sin. Although the catechism is, at this point, talking about the soul, it does not make a direct connection between 'divine image' and 'soul'. At least, there is not suggestion that the disfigurement said to be caused by original sin affects a person's physical beauty. Elsewhere, it is said that original sin disfigures the soul.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

God's Spirit and Word in the Time of the Promises

  705 Disfigured by sin and death, man remains "in the image of God," in
  the image of the Son, but is deprived "of the glory of God,"66 of his
  "likeness." the promise made to Abraham inaugurates the economy of
  salvation, at the culmination of which the Son himself will assume
  that "image"67 and restore it in the Father's "likeness" by giving it
  again its Glory, the Spirit who is "the giver of life."

Once again, the emphasis in this passage is mine. Here we see that man is disfigured by sin, which presumably includes original sin, but is not restricted to it. This disfigurement is equivalent to the disfigurement of death, which is purely physical; in fact the good surely are not disfigured in the soul when they die. Here the disfigurement of sin does not affect the "image of God" in which man remains - but surely the "image of God" is an identical term to "divine image." We seem to have a different theological view here, but presumably there is an explanation.


Which Christian denominations believe Jesus is buried in Japan? The town of Shingo in Japan claims to be the burial site of Jesus of Nazareth: someone took his place on the cross, and he made his way to Japan, where he died. (Wikipedia.) Do, or did, any denominations of Christianity believe this, and which?

The Kakure Kirishitan literally Hidden Christians were a sect of Japanese believers who received the Gospel in the 1600s, but after foreigners were expelled and went underground.  In the 200 years or so following, they developed many peculiar to syncretic to downright heretical ideas about Christianity, mainly based on passed down traditions that had become corrupted over time. What characterized their worship, for example, was a Buddhist sounding chant using Latin-sounding version of the Lord's Prayer and the Hail Mary.

That said, two points are in order:

I could not locate any information about a supposed kakure krishitan burial site for Jesus Christ, one way or another. From the link provided, I see the reference, but no mention of kakure krishitan.  That said, it wouldn't be an unreasonable assumption.
Such a position, that Jesus died and stayed in the grave is as fundamentally heterodox as it gets. C.S. Lewis, for example, stated that the resurrection was the essential distinctive of Christianity, without which the religion was useless.  Paul also stated, "If in Christ we have hope in this life only [i.e. no resurrection], we are of all people most to be pitied." (1st Corinthians 15:19 ESV)  The resurrection and the empty tomb are sine qua nons of the faith.

In short, if Jesus' bones have any resting place, the whole thing falls apart.

As such, its really hard to call any sect that denies the resurrection Christian.*

* I know we're not supposed to answer "are X Christians" or not—I'm not trying to say this of any group—only an essential doctrine that is a clear dividing line between Christian and other.


Does Revelation 22:19 apply to the whole Biblical canon or only the Book of Revelation? Revelation 22:19  KJV

  And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

When I first began to study the Bible in earnest, I became intrigued by the Apocrypha, and when I spoke to my pastor about it, he ignored my questions. Some other sources, however, indicated that those apocryphal books had been rejected, because they conflicted with that particular verse.

Through further study, it became apparent that the argument had no real backing. Since all of the books of the Bible were not written by the same person, and over a very long time, and they were not even compiled or even authorized until some years later.

Revelation 22:19 (NIV)

  And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God
  will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in
  the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.

"THIS SCROLL"

Literally, "this scroll" refers to the scroll which Apostle John was writing. John was a prisoner in Patmos Island and on the Lord's Day(Sunday), he saw Jesus and Jesus commanded him to write down what was shown to him.

  On the Lord’s Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud
  voice like a trumpet, which said: “Write on a scroll what you see
  and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum,
  Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea.” (Revelation 1:10-11, NIV)

There are many reasons why "this scroll" cannot refer to the whole Bible.

The whole Bible would not fit into a single scroll: The scrolls in the first century were big and thick. The Five Books of Moses were usually on a single large scroll but other books were on separate scrolls. For instance, when Jesus returned from the wilderness after the Baptism, Jesus read from the scroll of prophet Isaiah, which was a single scroll (source: Pulpit Commentary on Luke 4:17).

  and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it,
  he found the place where it is written... (Luke 4:17, NIV)
  The New Testament was not yet Canonized: When John was writing these words, know that even the Book of Revelation was still in the process of development. John still had to send it to the seven churches first and then it would take few months to write it down in the existing scrolls that they had, which doubtfully was not a complete New Testament canon. From the History of Development of the New Testament canon, the Canonization was a gradual process, which didn't take place in the first century but later, 2nd or 3rd century.


Is the present-day Roman Catholic Church the same church on which it was founded? Is the present-day Roman Catholic Church the same church on which it was founded? The Roman Catholic Church holds that the first pope was St. Peter, and his burial became the St. Peter's Basilica. If I remember correctly, National Geographic Inside the Vatican seems to support the idea that the first pope was St. Peter. Anyway, is the present-day version of the church the same church on which it was founded? In what ways has the church changed or modified to deal with the times?

The obvious:

Different popes
Different worldly events
Different cultures

Doctrinally, how is the present-day Roman Catholic Church the same or different from the one led by the first Pope in Rome?

Is the present-day Roman Catholic Church the same church on which it
  was founded?

The shortest and simplest answer is: yes.

The longer and significantly more complex answer would fill many volumes of an encyclopedia.

But, to very briefly scratch the surface...

The Church maintains that, although her fundamental doctrine hasn't changed, it has developed over the centuries.

Catholic apologists compare the Catholic Church's growth and development to that of an acorn. An acorn, in its smallest and simplest form, is genetically the same as a 200 year old Oak tree. An acorn looks nothing like an Oak, even though it fundamentally has everything it needs to grow and develope into a giant 200 year old tree.

In the same way the early primitive Church and her depositum fidei was planted by Christ through Holy Spirit. Of course the Church had to grow and develope in order to preach the Gospel to all nations.

  The tradition which comes from the apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of
  the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure
  these things in their hearts, through a penetrating understanding of the
  spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of
  those who have received through episcopal succession the sure gift of
  truth. For, as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly
  moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.  (Dei Verbum 8)

Over time the Church has developed various doctrines and dogmas that aren't explicitly displayed in Sacred Scripture. Some examples are the doctrines of the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Hypostatic Union. These doctrines are fundamental to the Faith, yet haven't always been as clearly defined as they are now.

Most of the Church's development of doctrine has been brought on by the assaults of heresies such as Arianism and Monothelistism. Various councils and synods have been called to develope these crucial doctrines in order to protect her fundamental truths.

See: DENZINGER

Finally, its important to distinguish between the true teachings of the Church and the abuse of the teachings of the Church. Many Christians have been scandalized by false representations of the truths of what the Church teaches.

Martin Luther posted his 95 theses primarily because the Church's indulgences were being fraudulently abused.  The true purpose of the granting of indulgences is simply to help Catholics grow in holiness, but millions of people have been scandalized because the abuses of men like Johann Tetzel.

The same goes for marriage. Marriage is, by definition, a holy and righteous sacrament institiuted by Christ.  Millions of people are scandalized everyday because marriage is abused.

  The abuse of a good does not diminish the good of a good.
  (Matthew Kelly, Rediscovering Catholicism)


Was it Adino or his army that killed eight hundred at one time? 2 Samuel 23:8 KJV
  These be the names of the mighty men whom David had:
  The Tachmonite that sat in the seat, chief among the captains; the
  same was Adino the Eznite: he lift up his spear against eight hundred,
  whom he slew at one time.

I don't understand about warfare in that epoch, but did Adino alone fight and win eight hundred literally or he commanded an army and did that prowess?

Considering that the three generals listed each did fantastic things, it would appear that Andino killed 800 by himself.

For more about the other generals, and the men following them you can read this:

http://www.southernspiritonline.org/inspirational-stories/the-original-band-of-brothers/


Does the Catholic Church have any mechanism to improve poor homilists? In the United States, principals periodically observe teachers in the classroom to make sure that they are teaching to the curriculum and to ensure that they are using the best pedagogical techniques.

Does the Catholic Church have anything like this in place to ensure that parish priests are preaching the Word of God correctly and effectively?

For instance, do proxies from the Cardinals' offices regularly sit in on parish Masses to ensure high quality homilies?

The quality of Catholic preaching has been a matter of concern for quite a long time, but particularly since the Second Vatican Council. But there is relatively little specific instruction mandated (on a Church-wide basis) to ensure that homiletics is a topic of constant study for priests.
Primarily, I think, this is because the Church is quite decentralized in many respects. As I stated in the third paragraph of my answer to an entirely different question, the Church considers itself something like a federation of more-or-less local churches, called particular churches. Roughly speaking, each of these is headed by a bishop, or an administrative equivalent, who has the power to (among other things) decide how ongoing training for priests will be conducted.
One of the documents issued by Vatican II was a decree titled Presbyterorum Ordinis ("Of the order of priests"), which discussed some of the important tasks and requirements of the priesthood in light of the Council's changes. Part 19 of this document states:

Let priests more readily study and effectively learn the methods of evangelization and the apostolate. Let opportune aids be prepared with all care, such as the institution of courses and meetings according to territorial conditions, the erection of centers of pastoral studies, the establishment of libraries, and the qualified supervision of studies by suitable persons. Moreover, let bishops, either individually or united in groups, see to it that all their priests at established intervals, especially a few years after their ordination, may be able to frequent courses in which they will be given the opportunity to acquire a fuller knowledge of pastoral methods and theological science.

Thus the importance of supervised study in evangelization was already foreseen.
Nine months after the promulgation of this decree, Pope Paul VI issued a general letter motu proprio ("on his own account") titled Ecclesiae Sanctae ("Of the Holy Church"). Among other things, this dealt with how the norms of Presbyterorum Ordinis would be implemented. Section 7, which corresponds to Part 19 of the prior document, reads:

Bishops either individually or collectively should make provisions that all priests, even if engaged in the ministry, complete a series of pastoral lectures in the course of the year immediately after ordination and that they attend at specified times other lectures in which an opportunity is given to their priests both to acquire a fuller knowledge of pastoral methods and of the theological, moral and liturgical sciences, and to strengthen their spiritual life and to share their apostolic experiences with their brother priests.
Bishops or episcopal conferences should also see to it that, according to local conditions, one or several priests of proven learning and virtue are chosen as moderators of studies to promote and arrange pastoral lectures and other aids which are considered necessary to foster the scientific and pastoral training of priests of their own territory: study centers, mobile libraries, congresses on catechetics, homiletics or the liturgy and other subjects of this kind.

(emphases added)
Thus, the formal instruction is simply that each bishop, alone or in conference with other bishops, decide what's necessary to help their priests, and how often they need to be helped. Nothing further, or more specific, is ever stated.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has a section of their website dedicated to improving homiletics; it has published, or linked to, documents emphasizing the importance of good homilies and discussing how to improve one's homilies, as well as links to resources from other Catholic organizations intended to help priests improve their preaching.
There does not appear to be any mechanism of the specific sort that you mention, of the bishop's representatives "grading" a practicing priest on his homilies. I'm not familiar with any discussion of such a possibility, or any discussion of why it might be considered a bad idea.


What does it mean for Christ to have been slain before the creation of the world? The book of Revelation describes Jesus as "slain before the foundations of the earth":

  All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast--all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world. (Revelation 13:8, NIV)

What does this mean? The "angel of the Lord" who appeared to Moses is Jesus, as I understand the following verses:

  Moses said to God, "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is his name?' Then what shall I tell them?" God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.'" (Exodus 3:13–14, NIV)

In addition, Numbers 29:13 indicates that Jesus didn't have a human body before the foundation of the earth:

  God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? (Numbers 29:13, NIV)

What does it mean for Christ to have been slain before the creation of the world?

Notice the reading of the King James Version:

  Revelation 13:8 (KJV) And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship
  him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain
  from the foundation of the world.

Modern Translations read differently:

  Revelation 13:8 (ESV) and all who dwell on earth will worship it,
  everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain.

  Revelation 13:8 (NLT) And all the people who belong to this world
  worshiped the beast. They are the ones whose names were not written
  in the Book of Life before the world was made--the Book that
  belongs to the Lamb who was slaughtered.

  Revelation 13:8 (NASB) All who dwell on the earth will worship him,
  everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain.

It seems that modern translations show that the Lamb was not slain before the foundation of the world.


Paul's analysis of Abraham's "offspring(s)" in Galatians 3 In Paul's letter to the Galatians, he talks about (among other things) how God's promise to Abraham was fulfilled in Christ. Galatians 3:16 reads (in the NRSV; other translations may say "seed", "progeny", "descendants", etc.):

Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring; it does not say, "And to offsprings", as of many; but it says, "And to your offspring", that is, to one person, who is Christ.

Elsewhere he says that "those who believe are the descendants of Abraham" (3:7) and "if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise" (3:29).
In Genesis, there are several promises (or repetitions of a promise) made to Abraham, including:

Then the Lord appeared to Abram, and said, "To your offspring I will give this land." (12:7)
On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, "To your descendants I give this land" (15:18)
"I will establish my covenant between me and you, and your offspring after you throughout their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. And I will give to you, and to your offspring after you, the land where you are now an alien, all the land of Canaan, for a perpetual holding; and I will be their God." God said to Abraham, "As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations." (17:7-9)
"I will indeed bless you, and I will make your offspring as numerous as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore." (22:17)

It seems that in Genesis, the promises are actually speaking about many descendants and not just one person, regardless of the grammatical detail. Certainly the appearances in chapters 17 and 22 are talking about many people in many generations.
So isn't Paul just making a totally unsupported argument? And why does he make it at all, given that a few verses before and after, he is happy to consider plural offspring (all believers)?

Evangelicals defend this analogy by arguing (1) that even in the original context, "Abraham's offspring" did not refer to all Abraham's physical descendants, (2) that "Christ" can be interpreted as a spiritual descendant, not merely a single physical descendant, and (3) that the context, particularly Galatians 3:28–29, demonstrates that Christians are joined together in Christ as descendants of Abraham.

First of all, we know that "Abraham's offspring" cannot refer to all the descendants of Abraham: John Calvin points out that in Genesis 21:12, the offspring is limited to Isaac, and then later again Esau is excluded.  Thus, Paul is arguing here that "offspring" cannot refer to all Abraham's biological descendants, but only those who are called by God.  Calvin writes (using seed as a synonym for offspring):

  He merely shows that the word seed must denote one who was not only descended from Abraham according to the flesh, but had been likewise appointed for this purpose by the calling of God.

So how do we get from "those who are called" to a single "offspring"?  Like Calvin, Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown argue that the single "offspring" is the unified body of Christ, with Christ himself at the head:

  one … Christ—not in the exclusive sense, the man Christ Jesus, but "Christ" (Jesus is not added, which would limit the meaning), including His people who are part of Himself, the Second Adam, and Head of redeemed humanity. Ga 3:28, 29 prove this, "Ye are all ONE in Christ Jesus" (Jesus is added here as the person is indicated). "And if ye be Christ's, ye are Abraham's SEED, heirs according to the promise."

That is, the singular "offspring" refers to Christ, considered generally: the redeemer, as opposed to the biological descendant of Abraham.  Abraham's offspring, thus, is Christ, and all those who are joined to him through redemption, both from Abraham's biological descendants, and from his non-biological descendants.  As JFB states, Galatians 3:28–29, just a few verses later, makes this plain:

  28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.

The Greek word translated "offspring" in v. 29 is the same word that is used earlier.  Thus, by virtue of being "one in Christ Jesus," all Christians are Abraham's "offspring," in the singular sense of offspring.

The New Bible Commentary (1970) summarizes:

  The divine agreement referred, says Paul, not to the plurality of Abraham's natural descendants, but to his offspring, seen to be Christ as the head of a new race.  The sense is not to successive generations of men, but fulfillment in one kind of offspring, which is summed up in Christ.  This interpretation is not evident in the language of Gn. 12:7; 13:15; 17:7, 8, and 22:18, but neither is it excluded.


Do any Protestant Sects object to the existence of angels? I'm kind of more-or-less asking this because CHRISTIANITY.SE IS GOING TO GET A REAL HAIRCUT soon, but I was thinking about Christian symbols and Jewish symbols and symbols that everyone agrees one and furthermore everyone feels comfortable engraving.

Everyone's Bible's got this in it

  Exodus 25:17-22 (NIV)

  17 “Make an atonement cover of pure gold—two and a half cubits long and a cubit and a half wide. 18 And make two cherubim out of hammered gold at the ends of the cover. 19 Make one cherub on one end and the second cherub on the other; make the cherubim of one piece with the cover, at the two ends. 20 The cherubim are to have their wings spread upward, overshadowing the cover with them. The cherubim are to face each other, looking toward the cover. 21 Place the cover on top of the ark and put in the ark the tablets of the covenant law that I will give you. 22 There, above the cover between the two cherubim that are over the ark of the covenant law, I will meet with you and give you all my commands for the Israelites.

And even the Jews who 5 seconds ago were prohibited from making graven images of God are commanded to make some sort of "cherubs".  So, what would be the reason, if any, for a Christian group today to avoid angels?  What's the most nuanced possible understanding of Exodus 25 that could justify an iconoclast who would even iconosmash the Ark of the Covenant

They are not making an idol or a graven image (an idol) of God by putting a cherubim (These are not the heart arrow cherubs) on the Ark of the Covenant. They are not worshiping the cherubims, they are worshiping God.
I have not found a denomination that doesn't believe in angels (see this comparison of denominations), so for what I know of there isn't (This is not including a few people that don't, this is groups).
And to answer your question, there is no reason a Christan group shouldn't believe in angels. Angels are mentioned 273 times in the Bible!


Which Christian sects promote faith healing? Although it may difficult to cite all the sects, what are some major Christian sects that promote "faith healing"?

The concept of "faith healing" is pretty broad and you would need to supply your own definition if you want a very specific answer. Lacking that, here is the general lay of the land.

Most Christian traditions actually believe (have faith) that God can and even does heal people. However I doubt this is what you are referring to. Where most denominations back off is when it comes to the recipient being able to demand (in faith?) to be healed and the result is seen as reflecting on the amount of faith rather than strictly God's sovereign will to say yes or no.

Of the latter kind of faith healing, it is most prevalent among Pentecostal and extreme Charismatic groups. It is given varying degrees of importance from a sometimes mentioned subject to a key item used as primary evidence of belief and even for evangelism.

A few less common groups with less direct ties to Christianity such as the Christian Scientist movement also promote this, although their implementation often varies from the kind of thing you see trumpeted on questionable TV channels.

It does sometimes pop up in other circles, even Catholic ones, but is generally not well received by other traditions. Again, other traditions may believe that God can and does grant healing and our faith plays a role in that, but the kind of belief and practice that probably comes to mind from watching TV evangelists is mostly the domain of Pentecostal movements.


What is Adam, if he isn't literally the first human? For the sake of argument, let's say our most recent common ancestor lived in Africa 10,000s of years ago, humans originally evolved from apes and migrated out of Africa, and the entire creation narrative (including the existence of Adam and our descent from him) is allegorical.

Then what is Paul referring to in Romans 5?

  12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

"Adam" is the source of sin and death -- but where do sin and death actually come from, if not literally from our common ancestor?

If Adam was not literally created by God, and if the Genesis account of creation is allegorical, then everything written in the Bible about sin, death and the need for Christ Jesus to come to earth to die for our sins is a lie.

The Genesis account of creation says that birds were created with sea creatures on day five while land animals were not created until day six. This is in direct opposition to the Darwinian view that birds evolved from land animals. The literalist account says birds preceded land animals. The theistic evolutionist view says exactly the opposite.

Theistic evolution denies that Adam and Eve were created by God in His image, and that because of Adam and Eve's disobedience, sin entered into the world and death through sin.

If Adam and Eve did not exist and they were not our "common ancestor" then there would be no need for Christianity and there would be no solution to sin and death would reign supreme.  There would be no hope for sinful humanity.


What is the difference between commandments, testimonies, statutes, precepts, judgements, and law? Reading Psalms 119, we see the following words:

Commandments
Law
Way
Testimonies
Precepts
Judgments
Statutes
Ordinances
Word

Deut 26: 16 - 19 reads

  16 “This day the Lord your God commands you to observe these statutes
  and judgments; therefore you shall be careful to observe them with all
  your heart and with all your soul. 17 Today you have proclaimed the
  Lord to be your God, and that you will walk in His ways and keep His
  statutes, His commandments, and His judgments, and that you will obey
  His voice. 18 Also today the Lord has proclaimed you to be His special
  people, just as He promised you, that you should keep all His
  commandments, 19 and that He will set you high above all nations which
  He has made, in praise, in name, and in honor, and that you may be a
  holy people to the Lord your God, just as He has spoken.”

Deut 6 : 1 reads

  “Now this is the commandment, and these are the statutes and judgments
  which the Lord your God has commanded to teach you, that you may
  observe them in the land which you are crossing over to possess,

There are many other places in the Old Testament where these words appear, but I couldn't quite grasp distinctly what they mean.

1) law - the first five books of the Old Testament; the Torah; the Pentateuch (Psalm 119:44)

2) testimonies - ordinances; God's standard of conduct according to the Ten Commandments (Psalm 119:2)

3) way - the pattern of life required by  God's law (Psalm 119:30)

4) precepts - injunction; requirement; commandment (Psalm 119:69)

5) statutes - things inscribed; enacted laws (Psalm 119:8)

6) commandments - a distinct, authoritative order (Psalm 119:166)

7) judgments - a binding law; judicial decision (Psalm 119:7)

8) word - a general term for God's revelation (Psalm 119:11)

Source: Nelson's NKJV Study Bible page 1003


What's the Biblical basis for "Without God I could do nothing"? Often times I have had or come across the thought of "Without God I could do nothing" in a general sense, not something as specific as doing good nor our ability to fix ourselves (i.e. I'm not talking about total depravity but about all actions).

The primary Biblical evidence I can find possibly backing this is the following:

The fact that God created humans with all of their abilities/being/situation/etc. so as such without God at all we would never be able to do anything because we could never exist
Jesus' quote "By myself I can do nothing" in John 5:30 (how much more so can we do nothing)
"I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing." in John 15:5
The fact that God ultimately controls the world and has the power to destroy us or do whatever He wants

The first potential problem that I see with these supporting the general claim that "without God I can do nothing" is that 1. doesn't really address the issue of our ability to do something now but rather the past (meaning yes, without Him we wouldn't exist, but since we do exist it doesn't determine if we can do something). The second potential problem is that 2. and 3. might only be implying a more specific case such as "apart from me you can do nothing good". The third is that in 4. if God didn't do anything ("without God") then Him stopping us wouldn't happen.

Is there any other Biblical basis for the general claim of "Without God I could do nothing"? Or is the evidence above generally enough to convince most theologians that this claim is true?

Here is an answer extracted and slightly edited (and with a new final paragraph added) from my article, "Christian Beliefs that the Bible Does Teach":
As we go about our daily lives, doing this or that for our fellow human beings, we naturally suppose that we are doing it by ourselves and from our own power. There’s nothing wrong with that as long as we don't think it’s really true. Because the reality is that by ourselves, we can't do anything at all.
Our very life comes from God. Without the spirit and life of God within us we are nothing but dust:

Then the Lord God formed a human from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the human became a living being. (Genesis 2:7)

God didn't just breathe life into us in the beginning. God breathes life into us every moment. When that breath from God is withdrawn, our life is over:

When you take away their breath, they die and return to their dust. (Psalm 104:29)

Psalm 127 recognizes poetically that everything we do, if it is anything at all, must come from God:

Unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labor in vain. Unless the Lord guards the city, the guard keeps watch in vain. (Psalm 127:1)

In the Gospels, both John the Baptist and Jesus Christ himself tell us that everything we have, everything we do, and everything we are is given to us from heaven—which means that it comes from the Lord our God:

John answered, "No one can receive anything except what has been given from heaven." (John 3:27)
Abide in me as I abide in you. Just as the branch cannot bear fruit by itself unless it abides in the vine, neither can you unless you abide in me. I am the vine, you are the branches. Those who abide in me and I in them bear much fruit, because apart from me you can do nothing. (John 15:4–5)

The fact is that every good thing we do comes from God, and is done by God's power working through us. When we take credit for our good works, we are stealing the credit from God, who actually does the works. This is what Jesus meant when he said:

The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own; but the Father who dwells in me does the works. (John 14:10)

We could not even do evil without God, for the simple reason given in the first two Bible quotes above: without God we would not exist, and therefore could not do anything at all. This does not, however, mean that the evil itself comes from God. Only the ability to do evil comes from God. But that is a different question.


Why are wise men common in contemporary [American] nativity scenes? It is widely supported that the wise men were not present at the time of Jesus' birth. (ie. What is the basis for the belief that the wise men did not arrive in Bethlehem until several months after the birth of Jesus?). However I only 'learned' of this quite late in my America/Protestant EFCA upbringing.

I've been perplexed since as to why the concept of wise men present during Jesus' birth appears to be propagated by Christians during Christmas1; the symbolism is common in Chistian paraphernalia/decorations, yearly 'Away in a Manger' plays mix shepherds/wise men, and such stories are [all too often] presented as 'truth' during such time;

Is the placement of the wise men at nativity scene common among churches that observe a 'nativity scene' Christmas?
When did the now 'traditional' nativity scene configuration become widespread? Was such tied to a religious (or cultural) movement? e.g. was there a Christian book that made such popular?

1 I realize that celebration of Christmas is very faith/church/culture specific and most such 'traditional' practices are not biblical-based. I also understand (and respect) that many Christians do not celebrate Christmas; or do not celebrate it in this manner.

I'm not looking for a defense, justification, or opinion of such, nor am I looking for a 'History of Christmas' except as such is immediately relevant to this particular perpetuated belief/story.

This is a good question and has a simple answer.

Nativity scenes are intended to be representations of Jesus birth, not a historically accurate depiction. In other words they are there to remind us of the important elements of the birth, not to be a photorealistic documentary. Therefore the shepherds, the wise men, angels are all included because they were involved, even if they were not all there at the same time. In a static scene it is the only way to make sure that all the important elements are included. Most Christian art is similar in nature, especially older art, and even more especially things like church stained glass windows, which have a similar purpose.

Wikipedia provides an overview of the history of nativity scenes, and I won't attempt to duplicate it here. They originated in the 13thC and were extremely common in the 14thC.


How are Christians expected to live up to the standards of following Christ? Just re-read the New Testament and this question has been at the front of my mind. These are just a few of similar quotes that are in question:

  Matthew 16:24: "Then Jesus said to his disciples: If any man will come
  after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me."

  for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by
  the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will
  live." (Romans 8:12-14, NASB)

  "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live,
  but Christ lives in me..." (from Galatians 2:20, NASB)

  In Matthew 7: 16-27, he makes the point:
  Not everyone who acknowledges Jesus as the Lord will be saved, but those who do the will of God.

Mother Theresa and Orthodox Monks at Mount Athos are some of the very few people I can think of when I read The New Testament and actually doing what Jesus asked of His disciples.

Personally, after reading the New Testament I see that I am a good person but not worthy of Jesus.

How can anyone call themselves a Christian if they do not give up their life (similar Mother Theresa or the Monks)? It seems pretty clear to me what he is asking of us(meaning no room for interpretation), so any clarification would be very helpful.

The question is:

What is the rationale, bible passages, word of God, tradition (or anything else) that allows someone to feel confident calling themselves a Christian?

Thank You.

All Men Are Sinners

After Adam sinned, the human race was corrupted, and everyone born was born separate from God.  (Genesis 2:15-17, 3:1-24, 8:21, Romans 5:12, 3:10-18, James 2:10-11)  Even a man's "righteous" deeds, prayers, sacrifices, etc. are offensive to God in that state!  (Isaiah 64:6, Isaiah 59:1-2, Proverbs 28:9, 15:8)  NOTE: Christians generally believe that this is why Jesus had to be born of a virgin - the sinless sacrifice of Jesus was essential to God's plan. (Luke 1:26-35, Hebrews 4:15, 1 Peter 2:21-23)

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

This is a major problem which earns us eternity in Hell.  (2 Thessalonians 1:8-9, Revelation 20:11-15, 21:1,10,27)

God's Redemptive Plan

God had a plan for redemption though, and immediately began reaching out to mankind, foreshadowing the coming of Jesus, and encouraging people to return to Him and trust Him for their salvation.  (Genesis 3:21, Hebrews 10:1-10, Romans 7:7, Galatians 3:24, Colossians 2:16-17)  In God's love, He sent His only Son to come and pay the penalty for our sin - death.  (John 3:16, Romans 5:8, 2 Corinthians 5:21)  In fact, not only was justice served, but those who belong to Christ actually have their sins removed. (1 John 1:7, 3:5, Psalm 103:12, Isaiah 43:25, Hebrews 10:14)  This fixes the "problem".  (Romans 6:23, 8:1)

"Life in Christ"...?

There are essentially three things which define the life of someone who is "in Christ":

Living in submission to His Lordship (Matthew 7:21, Romans 6:22)
Walking in His love (John 13:35, 1 John 4:7-8, Luke 10:25-28)
Being led by His Spirit (Romans 8:9, 13-14)

(With some understanding it becomes clear they are all the same thing.)

  "and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf."  (2 Corinthians 5:15, NASB)

It is important to note, though, that God's will is often different than what we think is good.  (Isaiah 55:8)  If God has called you to work in a factory, but you lock yourself away in an Abbey somewhere, you are in disobedience.  (1 Thessalonians 4:11, Hebrews 5:4, 1 Corinthians 7:17)  If God calls you to rebuke someone, but you shrink back, you are in disobedience.  (2 Samuel 12:1-15, Hebrews 10:38)

Crossing Over

A life "in Christ" is the opposite of a life "outside of Christ".  (1 Peter 4:1-5)  So to "repent", or "convert" is to die to your old life and live for Him.  (Acts 17:30, Romans 6:6, Galatians 2:20)  This death involves turning everything over to Him.  (Luke 14:27-33, Galatians 5:17,24)  This is a drastic decision that can only truly be made out of sincere sorrow for our old life of offense to God.  (2 Corinthians 7:10)

  "For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls. "  (1 Peter 2:25, NASB)

Judge Yourself

It is good for us to consider carefully whether we are "in Christ".  (2 Corinthians 13:5)  Have I surrendered my life to the Lord?  (Luke 17:33)  Do I desire to do His will above my own?  (Matthew 6:10, 26:42) Am I living ("dying") this way daily?  (Luke 9:23, 1 Corinthians 15:31)

We all make mistakes, but God is patient and forgiving toward His people.  (James 3:2, Nehemiah 9:17, James 5:16, 1 John 2:1)  The question is - are we sincerely trying to follow Christ out of a serious repentance and love?  (Hebrews 10:26)  If we are, God will honor that.  (Proverbs 24:12, Jonah)


(LDS) What kind of payment can a murderer make to receive a pardon? Related to this other question about whether murder is unforgivable according to the LDS Church.

One of the answers to the question says that:

  Murder is a very serious sin, and while it can't be forgiven it can be
  pardoned.

However the link in the word "pardoned" leads to a "page not found" message.

This answer, however,  does quote the following from D&C study guide in chapter 42:

  The second most serious sin is to commit murder—that is, to willfully
  shed innocent blood. Concerning this sin, the Lord has said: ‘Thou
  shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this
  world, nor in the world to come.’ (D&C 42:18.) Thus this is an
  unforgivable sin, which means that Jesus Christ cannot pay for (or
  ‘atone for’ or ‘forgive’) the penalty demanded by the broken law. This
  sin is a pardonable sin, however; that is, the sinner can eventually
  make full payment himself, and be received into a state of pardon. (Emphasis added.)

So, murder is described as a sin that Jesus cannot atone for and yet, the individual himself can receive a pardon by making some form of a payment.

My questions are:

1. What kind of "payment" can a murderer make to cover for murder?

2. What are the differences, if any, between being thus pardoned and
    being forgiven by Jesus' atonement?

I haven't taken a look at the other question yet, but after reading your question, my knee-jerk reaction was, "whaaaat?"
The word "pardon" does not exist in LDS doctrine outside of the "Unpardonable Sin."  The one and only person who can issue a "pardon" is Jesus Christ Himself.  Per D&C 64:10...

I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men.1

Said another way, we don't use the word.  So let's examine the issue a bit and see what's going on.
D&C 131:6 teaches, "It is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance."  The opposite is also true.  2 Nephi 9:25 teaches us:

...where there is no law given there is no punishment; and where there is no punishment there is no condemnation; and where there is no condemnation the mercies of the Holy One of Israel have claim upon them, because of the atonement.

The reality is, you can neither be saved nor punished in ignorance.  These are important concepts.  The Unpardonable Sin in context of this question is taking an innocent life — but that's from the perspective of understanding the gift of God.  People who don't understand the gift of life, who have not been born again in the Holy Ghost, cannot be judged guilty of the Unpardonable Sin and therefore can be forgiven the sin of murder.
An example of this is the ancient apostle Paul who, as Saul, consented to the death of Stephen.

And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women. ... And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him.  (Acts 22:4, 20)

Saul did not yet understand the glory of the Lord and, through that glory, the amazing gift of life.  He certainly understood "Thou shalt not kill," but by his day the Hebrews had effectively realigned the commandments to refer to the chosen people — and Stephen was no longer among them.  He was ignorant of the depth and meaning of Jehovah's commandment and not a believer in Jesus.  But because of his vision he became a believer and visited Ananias and was told:

And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.  (Acts 22:16)

Before baptism, the only "payment" is to the laws of man and the combination of repentance and baptism.  Before baptism, the person may understand it's wrong to kill, but doesn't understand it the way God understands it.  they are ignorant.  After baptism, and after the LDS member has been taught about the sanctity of life, sobriety of the scriptures, and gifts of God, and received the Holy Ghost, murder can become unforgivable.
But before we go into that in detail, let's briefly look at the Unpardonable Sin in general.  D&C 76:31-37 tells us very specifically who those who succumb to the Unpardonable Sin are:

Thus saith the Lord concerning all those who know my power, and have been made partakers thereof, and suffered themselves through the power of the devil to be overcome, and to deny the truth and defy my power — They are they who are the sons of perdition, of whom I say that it had been better for them never to have been born; for they are vessels of wrath, doomed to suffer the wrath of God, with the devil and his angels in eternity; concerning whom I have said there is no forgiveness in this world nor in the world to come — Having denied the Holy Spirit after having received it, and having denied the Only Begotten Son of the Father, having crucified him unto themselves and put him to an open shame.
These are they who shall go away into the lake of fire and brimstone, with the devil and his angels — And the only ones on whom the second death shall have any power. (Emphasis mine)

Those who commit the Unpardonable Sin are not forgiven.  They are never forgiven.  They will be judged to reside in Outer Darkness (also called Perdition) for eternity.  But note those conditions.

One must know the power of Christ
One must have been made a partaker of Christ's power
One must then have allowed oneself to be overcome by Lucifer
And denied the truth
And denied Christ's power

The unpardonable sin isn't a mistake.  It's not an error.  It's a choice — an educated choice.  A willing defiance of God's will.
Which is why it cannot be forgiven.  This sheds new light on Matthew 12:32, which states that anyone who speaks against the Holy Ghost (in the context described above) will not be forgiven.  Had Paul committed murder after his vision of Jesus, it would have been an unpardonable sin.
But is the Unpardonable Sin restricted to denying the Holy Ghost?  If you think about it, one of the Holy Ghost's duties is to teach us all things realting to Christ and His gospel (John 14:26).  Therfore, any choice to turn against the Lord is a denial of the Holy Ghost and therefore is unpardonable.
And that includes taking an innocent life.  Consider the following:
Rev. 21:8  But ... murderers ... shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
We've seen that phrase, "second death," before.  Scroll back up and read D&C 76:31-37 again.  Those who commit the Unpardonable Sin, who become sons (and daughters) of Perdition, and are cast out to Outer Darkness, they suffer the second death.
But, just to make it clear in our day...
D&C 42:18 And now, behold, I speak unto the church. Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come.
However, what about the period of time between baptism and achieving those spiritual highs descirbed in D&C 76?  Alma 39:5-6 teaches us:

Know ye not, my son, that these things are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost?  For behold, if ye deny the Holy Ghost when it once has had place in you, and ye know that ye deny it, behold, this is a sin which is unpardonable; yea, and whosoever murdereth against the light and knowledge of God, it is not easy for him to obtain forgiveness; yea, I say unto you, my son, that it is not easy for him to obtain a forgiveness.

Alma's last statement, "it is not easy for him to obtain forgiveness" reflects the period of time between baptism and achieving the conditions described in D&C 76.  It's hard ... very hard ... to receive forgiveness.
But, is there any scripture or teaching that suggests there is a payment to be made?  No, there is not.  How can you possibly return the potential and infinite value of a life?  It's little wonder that it's hard, even when it's possible.
Before I sum up, I need to clarify something.  I don't know where that linked question found the reference to the study manual.  I visited LDS.org and ran through all the institute study manuals and couldn't find that citation.  I have no doubt Bro. Ludlow said what he did, but he was not a prophet of the Lord.  He's not wrong so long as you remember the difference between those two periods: between baptism and knowing the power of Christ, and thereafter.  D&C 132:19,26-27 specifically teaches that entrance into the new and everlasting covenant (the Celestial Kingdom and marriage) can ONLY be had if no innocent blood has been shed.  There's a lot to this that Bro. Ludlow's quote doesn't even touch, and so I would NOT take it at simple face value.  Perhaps that was an old manual that has since been updated to clarify the doctrine, but I couldn't find it.
TL/DR
OK, that was lengthy, but to specifically answer your question: there are three periods to consider:

Before baptism, killing a person is forgivable through repentance (including satisfying the laws of man) and baptism.

After baptism, it's difficult, very difficult, to obtain forgiveness because, frankly, how confusing is "thou shalt not kill," really?  On top of this, what restitution can be made as part of the repentance process.  As I said, very difficult.

Finally, once you have met the expectations of spiritual growth as described in D&C 76, having been born again, received the Holy Ghost, been made aware of Christ's power and partaken of it (a whole discussion unto itself), murder is 100% unforgivable.

1 Which means that we, individually, are expected to fogrive murders.  Having never been involved with one, or even known someone who was, I can only imagine how difficult it would be to forgive a murderer.  Note, however, there is a difference between forgivness and consequence.  The rule of the Church is that excommunicated people may not partake of the Sacrament (bread & water).  Our forgiveness doesn't change the fact that their actions required a separation from the Church that restricts their activity until or unless rebaptized.  This reflects the idea of the Unpardonable Sin.  Some actions separate you from the Kingdom permanently.


Does water baptism or a subconscious intention to be baptized with water by a human being necessarily and logically follows one's spiritual salvation? Some say that water baptism is “an outward expression of an inward reality”; that it is “obedience to a command by God”. Regarding these statements, I have the following questions:

Does all inward reality demand an outward expression?

Christ’s death on cross is an outward expression of God’s love for his children. However, is the intention to express outwardly a necessary condition/criteria for an inward reality to be real/genuine, especially when the outward expression is a ritual or ceremony? I understand how a motivation to do good to others is an outward expression of the inward reality that one is following Christ’s command to love one’s neighbors as oneself, but I can’t understand it the same way for a ritual or a ceremony. Aren't some inward realities sufficient by themselves, such as a spiritual baptism by Holy Spirit through believing and practicing the words of Christ and having faith in Him?
Is the intention to be baptized by water the irreplaceable outward expression demanded for the inward reality (that one has been saved) to be true?

Is water baptism (or the intention to do it) the only way to outwardly express that one has truly accepted Christ and genuinely believes in Him? If water baptism cannot be replaced by other expression (such as openly spreading Christ’s words and ideas of the Gospels), then why? Is it simply a ritual chosen by God to show that one has been saved or does it add merit beyond one’s faith in Christ’s death on cross?
If one has no intention to be baptized by water, does it mean that his/her faith in God is fake, and that he/she has not been genuinely saved?

Let’s say that a hypothetical person living in a hypothetical country received a Bible in a foreign language. The only message that he managed to receive from the Bible is that Jesus died on the cross for our sin, that whoever believe in him will receive eternal life (sorry if my summary of the main theme of the New Testament is not accurate), and that Jesus loves God and loves his neighbors as himself. Even though stealing is not a crime in his country, he steals no more, for he learned to love his neighbors as himself, and he doesn’t want his own stuff stolen. We can go as far as to say that if he continues to steal after claiming to have believed, his belief is not genuine. However, does he need to have the intention to be baptized by water in order to rightfully claim that his belief is true, even if he has no concept at all about water baptism? Will the idea to be submerged into water by some priest magically appear in his mind if he truly believed?
Now, if a person does know about water baptism but has no intention to do it, is there no way for his/her faith to be true?

I believe that Christ’s death on the cross is glory at its fullest, and faith in it is sufficient for one to be saved and spiritually cleansed. I also believe that there will be outward expression after one believes, and that the outward expression is the will to love God and love one’s neighbors as oneself. However, I am not so sure whether water baptism or the intention to do it (or any other rituals) necessarily and logically follows one’s decision to believe. I thought that baptism by the Holy Spirit (cleansing the heart of sin) is sufficient, and personally had no intention to be baptized by water by another human being. But the more I read, the more I realized how many churches claim that if one has been truly saved, he/she will automatically have the intention to be baptized by water by some priest to demonstrate obedience to God, as if it has been explicitly and literally commanded by Jesus in the Bible to be an essential and necessary characteristics of a saved person. This has really shaken my confidence in the truthfulness of my faith and validity of my understanding all these years.

Does water baptism or a subconscious intention to be baptized with water by a human being necessarily and logically follows one's spiritual salvation?

  Romans 6:3-4  Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into
  Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?  Therefore we are buried
  with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from
  the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in
  newness of life.

Baptism can be a difficult subject to address. The first problem is that there is an invisible reality of being immersed (baptized) into Christ when we believe in him and receive new and eternal life. This merger with Christ is also called baptism.

The public demonstration of our identification with the death burial and resurrection of Jesus is a reflection of a desire in the heart to proclaim publicly our new life. It would be expected that there would be variance in the intensity of these feelings based on the suddenness of conversion, personality of the person experiencing the conversion, and circumstances such as the requirements of a specific church. In the early church it was not uncommon for new Christians to wait until Easter to be baptized to further emphasize their identification with the death burial and resurrection of Jesus.

One other facet of Baptism is that when Jesus gave the great commission to the disciples, Baptism was part of their mandate.

  Mark 16:15-18  And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and
  preach the gospel to every creature.   He that believeth and is
  baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
  And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they
  cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;   They shall take
  up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt
  them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Some feel that the supernatural elements described of “all” believers make these verses applicable to the immanently anticipated kingdom restoration. This view is supported by the statement of Paul that even though he did baptize some people, that was not what the Lord sent him to do;

  1 Corinthians 1:17  For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach
  the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should
  be made of none effect.

There are some churches that make public baptism a significant part of Christian life and there are others that are not that concerned about it. All should agree that the inward “baptism” into new life in Christ is essential to be a Christian.

For the outward actions we may wish to consider Paul;

  Romans 14:5  One man esteemeth one day above another: another
  esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own
  mind.


Where to find information about numbers of Mormons in France, Poland, Russia during WW2 I am interested in the numbers of members in the LDS Church in France, Poland, and Russia between 1935-1945.

Would anyone know what the amounts would be, or where it can be obtained from?

That is an interesting question. I too would like to know why you are asking, as I have never thought of this specific time period in church history.  Here is some information I could find by a few searches. I have quotes and I have attached sources as well if you want to dig further.
France

By 1930 there were only forty-seven French Mormons, whereas in the French-speaking areas of Belgium and Switzerland there were 344 and 280 Saints, respectively.
War would again interfere with missionary efforts in 1939 as missionaries were withdrawn from France with the outbreak of World War II. And even with the end of that conflict and the reopening—for the fourth time—of the French Mission in 1946, war still indirectly hampered proselyting efforts: with the Korean War and the need for U.S. soldiers, the number of missionaries available was severely limited.

Source: The Saints in France (Ensign: January 1976)
Poland

In 1928, Selbongen (renamed Zelwagi after the Second World War) became the home of a Latter-day Saint meetinghouse and congregation. Selbongen was ceded to Poland from Germany after World War II. Elder Ezra Taft Benson, then a Church apostle and later United States secretary of agriculture, visited Zelwagi soon after the war. More than 100 members and friends gathered to sing, share testimonies, pray and listen to his counsel. In 1947, authorities ordered Zelwagi meetings discontinued because Polish was the only language the government allowed to be spoken at public meetings. (As former citizens of Germany, the members conducted their meetings in German).

Source 2:

After the war, many of the previous LDS branches in eastern Germany now resided in the realigned Poland, meaning many members soon left or were forced out. The branch in Selbongen – renamed Zelwagi by the government — earned a post-war visit by Elder Ezra Taft Benson in his nearly yearlong European welfare mission in 1946. More than 100 members and friends gathered for a quickly convened meeting.

Source: Poland - LDS Facts and Statistics
Source: LDS Church in Poland has had long, hard journey
Russia
I haven't found anything for that time period in Russia, but if you are interested about general history, there are quite a few articles. Mormons in Russia, The LDS Church in Russia

With the Bolshevik-led October 1917 revolution, atheism became the official religion and the Bible was not widely read or available. The country was closed to all Christianity, which included The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The church wasn't officially recognized until 1991.


How does the Passover foreshadow the coming of Jesus as the Messiah? In 1 Corinthians 5:7, Paul refers to Jesus as "Christ, our Passover", suggesting that the Passover of Exodus somehow foreshadowed the life of Jesus.

How specifically does the Passover do this?

  Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really
  are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.  1
  Corinthians 5:7 ESV

In regards to Passover, Jesus is closely identified with the Passover lamb.

Exodus 12 gives the specific details on how to select the lamb and how it was to be used.

  3 Announce to the whole community of Israel that on the tenth day of
  this month each family must choose a lamb or a young goat for a
  sacrifice, one animal for each household. ... 5 The animal you select
  must be a one-year-old male, either a sheep or a goat, with no
  defects. 6 Take special care of this chosen animal until the evening of the fourteenth day of this first month. Then the whole assembly of the community of Israel must slaughter their lamb or young goat at twilight. 7 They are to take some of the blood and smear it on the sides and top of the doorframes of the houses where they eat the animal. ... 13 But the blood on your doorposts will serve as a sign, marking the houses where you are staying. When I see the blood, I will pass over you. This plague of death will not touch you when I strike the land of Egypt.

A couple of key points here,

The lamb was to be without defects
The blood covered the doorposts and it was because of this blood that those within the home were saved from death.

Jesus as we know was/is perfect (without sin) in every way and it's because of his shed blood that we are saved as well.

In John 1:29 John the baptist makes this declaration about Jesus:

  The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look! The
  Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

And in 1 Peter 1:19-20

  It was the precious blood of Christ, the sinless, spotless Lamb of
  God. 20 God chose him as your ransom long before the world began, but
  he has now revealed him to you in these last days

.


Clarifications on the concept of Trinity according to Catholic creed I'm trying to understand what the correct understanding would be according to Catholic teachings.

From what I understand the concept of Trinity is 3 persons who are one and the same.  Is this correct?

So from this understanding, would you say God(Father) sent Jesus or would you say God(Father) is Jesus also?

I was reading a catholic website and it was describing their beliefs and it mentioned that Jesus will sit at the right hand of God(Father).

Is Jesus God or not?  And is he All-Knowing like God?

Thank you.

From what I understand the concept of Trinity is 3 persons who are one and the same. Is this correct?
Yes. But your statement is incomplete. Trinity is 3 persons who are one and the same God NOT one and the same person.
So from this understanding, would you say God(Father) sent Jesus or would you say God(Father) is Jesus also?
Catholics claim God the Father sent Jesus. They do not say God the Father is Jesus, because Father, Son and the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons.
Is Jesus God or not? And is he All-Knowing like God?
Jesus is God and so he is omniscience (knows everything that there is to know).
I assume the distinction and the similarity between the three persons of the trinity is causing you confusion.

251 In order to articulate the dogma of the Trinity, the Church had to develop her own terminology with the help of certain notions of philosophical origin: 'substance', 'person/hypostasis', 'relation'.
252The Church uses

the term 'substance' (rendered also at times by 'essence' or 'nature') to designate the divine being in its unity,
the term 'person' or 'hypostasis' to designate the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the real distinction among them, and
the term 'relation' to designate the fact that their distinction lies in the relationship of each to the others.

253The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the 'consubstantial Trinity'
254/255 The divine persons are really distinct from one another and are relative to one another.
(From CCC)


How was the term 'The Cross' understood by the audience of Jesus? (Catholic perspective) At Luke  9:23 we read :

"And He said to all, “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me."

We also read at  Galatians 16:14

"But far be it from me to glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world."

The concept surrounding the Cross, as we have today, was evidently  developed post-Resurrection. But the audience of Jesus, for whom Cross symbolized capital punishment awarded to criminals ( like what gallows symbolizes for today's generation), might have understood the term Cross  in an entirely different perspective. One would therefore surmise that either :(i) the usage of the word 'cross' was very much prevalent in everyday language of the people of Jesus' time , or, in the alternative : (ii) Jesus might in fact, have used some other term(s)  which the Evangelists later summarized in 'the Cross'  which had by then become a commonly accepted term.

My question is: has the Catholic Church ever studied the prospects of option (ii) above ?

John 6:60 New International Version

  On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?"

Matthew 13:

  10 The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?”
  11 He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.

We don't know for sure, but Jesus had a reputation for speaking "hard sayings" and parables.    The Cross was a well known method of both execution and torture.   It was usually given to rebels and other notorious criminals.   So I propose that the disciples might have understood it in a literal fashion.   That following Christ might lead them to an end where they would share that fate, or in a more metaphorical sense that people who followed him would have to face suffering of various kinds.