What and where are the evidences for the Catholic Church's Apostolic Succession? How come there is no evidence issued out by the Vatican that proves their list of Popes that have carried on from Apostle Peter?

I can't find this anywhere and since I can't meet Pope Francis unless I'm Katy Perry or Trump, how would I ever be able to find out about this? I can't really enter the Vatican and ask...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes

I can't just trust the Vatican by their 'words'. I don't KNOW if they really did come from the line of Peter or not. I can only go by their word. This is not good enough for me. What if they made these people up? So far we can prove St Linus and St Clement existed since they were mentioned by Apostle Paul in the NT but whether they went onto being Arcbishops; we don't know for sure.

How do we know whether the Catholic church is the successor of Peter or the Orthodox church? Since they both claim they are from the line of Peter...

First of all, the Catholic Church admits that both Rome and Antioch (Orthodox) have a line of succession starting with St. Peter.

Speaking of the apostolic succession of Antioch, the Catholic
Encyclopedia says :
"The first Bishop of Antioch after St. Peter..."
[...]
Evodius

Second of all, the Orthodox Church, which is not in union with the Catholic Church, also admits that both Antioch and Rome have St. Peter as their first Bishop.

Speaking of the apostolic successions originating from St. Peter,
OrthdoxWiki says :
After the Ascension, the apostles dispersed to preach Christianity to the world. They each founded different patriarchates. Some of the
most prominent disciples of Jesus founded the patriarchates that made
up the Pentarchy.
Jerusalem - James
Antioch - Peter
Rome - Peter
Alexandria - Mark
Constantinople - Andrew
Pentarchy

Third of all, the Orthodox Church has always recognized that technically speaking Rome is superior to all of their churches in view of the Pentarchy. The only reason they go off the rails so to say is that, in a spirit of contradiction, they excommunicated the primate when he disagreed with them.

The Orthodox attitude to the Papacy is admirably expressed by a twelfth-century writer, Nicetas, Archbishop of Nicomedia :
My dearest brother, we do not deny to the Roman Church the primacy
amongst the five sister Patriarchates; and we recognize her right to
the most honourable seat at an Ecumenical Council. But she has
separated herself from us by her own deeds, when through pride she
assumed a monarchy which does not belong to her office … How shall we
accept decrees from her that have been issued without consulting us
and even without our knowledge? If the Roman Pontiff, seated on the
lofty throne of his glory wishes to thunder at us and, so to speak,
hurl his mandates at us from on high, and if he wishes to judge us and
even to rule us and our Churches, not by taking counsel with us but at
his own arbitrary pleasure, what kind of brotherhood, or even what
kind of parenthood can this be? We should be the slaves, not the sons,
of such a Church, and the Roman See would not be the pious mother of
sons but a hard and imperious mistress of slaves.’
Wikipedia relates to us that :  Pentarchy (from the Greek Πενταρχία, pentarchía, from πέντε pénte, "five", and ἄρχειν archein,
"to rule") is a model of Church organization historically championed
in the Eastern Orthodox Church. It found its fullest expression in the
laws of Emperor Justinian I of the Byzantine Empire. In the model, the
Christian church is governed by the heads (patriarchs) of the five
major episcopal sees of the Roman Empire: Rome, Constantinople,
Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.[2]
[...]
The greater authority of these sees in relation to others was tied to
their political and ecclesiastical prominence; all were located in
important cities and regions of the Roman Empire and were important
centers of the Christian Church. Rome, Alexandria and Antioch were
prominent from the time of early Christianity, while Constantinople
came to the fore upon becoming the imperial residence in the 4th
century. Thereafter it was consistently ranked just after Rome.
Pentarchy

In other words, both Catholics and Orthodox believe the Pope is the successor of St. Peter. The difference being that Rome makes the difference between mere succession and the dispensation of the keys which would be considered final and most important succession. Therefore you cannot assume there is a bias in the lines of succession. By the way, Orthodox believe that the Bishop of Rome is the original Primus Inter Pares, a title of primacy which has now been usurped by Constantinople, although if unity is regained Constantinople will lose the title :

The Eastern Orthodox Church also uses the term "first among equals" in
regard to the Bishop of Rome during the first thousand years of Christianity.
Whereas the Patriarch of Constantinople is now
considered first among the Orthodox patriarchs, the Orthodox Church
considers the Bishop of Rome (regarded as the "Patriarch of the West")
the "first among equals" in the Pentarchy of the Patriarchal Sees
according to the ancient, first millennial order (or "taxis" in Greek)
of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem,
established after Constantinople became the eastern capital of the
Roman/Byzantine Empire. The Bishop of Rome no longer holds this
distinction in the Orthodox Church because, following the East–West
Schism, he is no longer in communion with the Orthodox Church.
Primus inter pares (Wikipedia)

Lastly, the list of Roman Bishops can be found easily but if you want to verify the validity of every individual instance of succession you'll obviously need to consult more precise ressources, like the Catholic Encyclopedia for all the instances of succession.


Mormon perspective on "Heavenly Father", "Heavenly Mother" and "Holy Ghost" This is a bit of a follow-up question to this other question.

One of the answers to that question says that:

  Mormons believe that, although Heavenly Father was the one who planned
  the creation of heaven and earth, it was the pre-mortal Jesus Christ
  who actually created heaven and earth.

And one of the comments says:

  In the Mormon understanding, in scripture, "the Father" can be
  referring to either of these two people and usually it has to be
  understood from context whether it's referring to Heavenly Father (the
  Father of all our spirits and the Father of Jesus) or the Father of
  our salvation (Jesus Christ).

This is related to this article at lds.org about Mother in Heaven. The article says:

  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that all human
  beings, male and female, are beloved spirit children of heavenly
  parents, a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother. This understanding
  is rooted in scriptural and prophetic teachings about the nature of
  God, our relationship to Deity, and the godly potential of men and
  women. The doctrine of a Heavenly Mother is a cherished and
  distinctive belief among Latter-day Saints.

I would like to ask these questions on this subject:

Is the Heavenly Father the same as Elohim?
If not, is Elohim same as Jesus or another person?
Is Holy Ghost another individual, a separate person from Heavenly Father?
Is Heavenly Mother same as Mary (Jesus earthly mother)?
Do Mormons direct their prayers only to Heavenly Father or also to
Jesus?

The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three distinct beings.
In Latter-day Saint theology, Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are three distinct individuals. Doctrine and Covenants 130, a revelation received by Joseph Smith, states the following:

The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. (D&C 130:22)

Heavenly Father had a glorified physical body from the before the world was created. Jesus Christ, however, did not have a physical body until his mortal ministry (Ether 3:16). Now, as a resurrected being, He has a glorified physical body like Heavenly Father's.
We don't know a lot about Heavenly Mother (pretty much everything we know is in the article you linked above), but from what we do know, we can presume that her physical nature is similar to Heavenly Father's – already with a glorified physical body from before this world was created. We know from the scriptures that once we receive a resurrected body, the spirit and body will never again be divided (D&C 138:17). Heavenly Mother could not have been born physically again as Mary (we can only have one body at a time!). Mary, despite her honored calling, was a spirit child of heavenly parents like the rest of us.
Latter-day Saints pray to Heavenly Father, in the name of Jesus Christ.
Latter-day Saints worship both Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ (especially in hymns, where either may be addressed). But when we pray, we only pray to Heavenly Father, and we do it in the name of Jesus Christ. From an article on LDS.org:

The Church's first article of faith states, "We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost." These three beings make up the Godhead. They preside over this world and all other creations of our Father in Heaven.
The Mormon view of the members of the Godhead corresponds in a number of ways with the views of others in the Christian world, but with significant differences. Latter-day Saints pray to God the Father in the name of Jesus Christ. They acknowledge the Father as the ultimate object of their worship, the Son as Lord and Redeemer, and the Holy Spirit as the messenger and revealer of the Father and the Son. But where Latter-day Saints differ from other Christian religions is in their belief that God and Jesus Christ are glorified, physical beings and that each member of the Godhead is a separate being. ("Godhead," LDS.org)

Elohim is a name or title that refers to Heavenly Father.
Usually the name Elohim is used to refer to Heavenly Father, and Jehovah refers to Jesus Christ (especially the pre-mortal Jesus Christ). From the Encyclopedia of Mormonism (not an official Church publication, but generally a reliable resource):

Elohim appears in the Hebrew Bible as a common noun identifying Israel's God. ... It was also frequently used interchangeably with Jehovah, the proper name for Israel's God. ... Latter-day Saints use the name Elohim in a more restrictive sense as a proper name-title identifying the Father in Heaven. ("Elohim," Encyclopedia of Mormonism)


Why does the Holy Spirit not take the form of a human being just like Jesus did? The Holy Spirit in the Bible takes the form of:
Dove, Oil, Light, Wind and Tongues of Fire. But never a human being. Why?

According to Trinity theology, there are three persons in God and they are one.

  Father
  The Word or the Son
  Holy Spirit

They are all spirit according to John 4:24.

  God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth." (John 4:24, NIV)

Though there are three persons, only one of them took the form of flesh.

  The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the
  Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14, NIV)

The Bible doesn't tell us whether all three of them can become flesh, but there is no reason why they cannot do so, because God is All-powerful. All we know is that only The Word became flesh and is called the Son of God. There is a strong reason why The Word became flesh and it was a necessity. It was all planned by God that His Son should become human and die on the Cross. It was the will of the Father that the Son should born from a woman and die for all mankind. Since it was necessary for the Son to die as human on the cross, the Son/Word became flesh.

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

  Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has
  blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in
  Christ. For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to
  be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us for
  adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his
  pleasure and will— to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has
  freely given us in the One he loves. (Ephesians 1:3-6, NIV)

The three persons in the Trinity have different roles. The Father plays the role of a father, the Son plays the role of intercession between God and men, the Holy Spirit dwells inside the believers and help them to live a holy life.

  But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my
  name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I
  have said to you. (John 14:26, NIV)

  But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away.
  Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I
  will send him to you. When he comes, he will prove the world to be in
  the wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment (John 16:7-8, NIV)

God can live inside the believers in the form of the Holy Spirit. Though the Father and the Son are in Heaven, the Holy Spirit is in this world to help the believers.

  Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? (1 Corinthians 3:16, ESV)


Are Jehovah's Witnesses particularly anti-violence? One of the things I've heard about Jehovah's Witnesses is that they've been persecuted by governments for their pacifism:

  They do not work in industries associated with the military, do not
  serve in the armed services, and refuse national military service,
  which in some countries may result in their arrest and imprisonment.
  They do not salute or pledge allegiance to flags or sing national
  anthems or patriotic songs. Jehovah's Witnesses see themselves as a
  worldwide brotherhood that transcends national boundaries and ethnic
  loyalties. Sociologist Ronald Lawson has suggested the religion's
  intellectual and organizational isolation, coupled with the intense
  indoctrination of adherents, rigid internal discipline and
  considerable persecution, has contributed to the consistency of its
  sense of urgency in its apocalyptic message.

And from Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in the United States

  Throughout the history of Jehovah's Witnesses, their beliefs,
  doctrines and practices have engendered controversy and opposition
  from governments, communities, and religious groups. Many Christian
  denominations consider their doctrines to be heretical, and some
  religious leaders have labeled Jehovah's Witnesses a cult. Members of
  the religion have also met with objection from governments for
  refusing to serve in the military, particularly in times of war. Many
  individuals consider their door-to-door preaching to be intrusive.
  These issues have at times led to persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses
  in various countries, including the United States.

Is their pacifism based on a rejection of all violence, or is it more a reflection of their beliefs about, and behaviour regarding governments?

Both. The article Why Don’t Jehovah’s Witnesses Go to War? on JW.org addresses this well.
On the one hand, they are "neutral" toward governments:

Jesus’ disciples obey his command to be “no part of the world” by remaining strictly neutral in political matters. (John 17:16) They do not protest against military actions or interfere with those who choose to serve in the armed forces.

From chapter 7 of their booklet Keep Yourselves in God's Love, entitled Value Life and Blood as God Does, they say:

Because Jesus’ followers are “no part of the world” but remain strictly neutral toward its politics and wars, they avoid personal and community bloodguilt. * (John 15:19; 17:16) And in imitation of Christ, they do not respond violently when others persecute them. Rather, they show love for their enemies, even praying for them.

You can read more about their rationale for political neutrality here.
And on the other hand, they abstain from violence out of a devotion to "the love ethic of Jesus" (quoting again from Why Don’t Jehovah’s Witnesses Go to War?):

Jesus commanded his disciples to “love one another.” (John 13:34, 35) They would thus form an international brotherhood in which no member would ever wage war against his brother or sister. ...
The Encyclopedia of Religion and War states: “The earliest followers of Jesus rejected war and military service,” recognizing those practices as “incompatible with the love ethic of Jesus and the injunction to love one’s enemies.” Likewise, German theologian Peter Meinhold said of those early disciples of Jesus: “Being a Christian and a soldier was considered irreconcilable.”

Similarly, in the Watchtower article "Is War Compatible with Christianity?" they say, "Is it reasonable to think that a Christian could love and pray for his enemies while waging war against them?" And it says in Value Life and Blood:

Those who value life as Jehovah does and who want to keep themselves in his love also avoid violence in all its forms. Says Psalm 11:5: “He hates anyone who loves violence.” That text is more than a statement about God’s personality; it is a guiding principle for life.

There are exceptions to their generally anti-violence stance. They believe that it is just for governments to administer capital punishment to murderers. They permit violent self-defense in the case of your life (or loved ones' lives) being threatened, though they oppose it if it's merely in defense of property.


What is the concept of kowtow in Christianity? I am a Chinese.
In China, every year on Ching Ming Festival, Chinese people go to the tombs of their dead ancestors to kowtow.
Christianity prohibits kowtow to ancestors, which means disrespect for ancestors in the Chinese concept.
During the Qing Dynasty, many missionaries came to China to preach, but very few Chinese believed in Christianity. Their attempt to turn China into a Christian country failed.
What do you think of this matter?

What is the concept of kowtow in Christianity?
According to the Wikipedia article partially quoted below, the Chinese tradition of bowing low three to nine times before the tomb of their ancestors is a mark of respect:

The Kowtowing ritual in front of the grave is performed in the order of patriarchal seniority within the family. After the ancestor worship at the grave site, the whole family or the whole clan feast on the food and drink they have brought for the worship either at the site or in nearby gardens in the memorial park, signifying the family's reunion with its ancestors. Source: Qingming Festival (Wikipedia)

There are various cultures that use bowing to living persons as a mark of respect.  For example, Japanese businessmen will demonstrate the degree of respect being given depending on how low they bow, or how slightly they bow.  The tradition of ‘kowtow’ to a living person is nowhere prohibited within Christianity.  Indeed, the Bible has many instances of where a person would even prostrate themselves on the ground before a mighty ruler, or when in the presence of deity.  Neither is the cleaning of gravesites prohibited within Christianity.
What the Christian Bible forbids is praying to dead ancestors.
In some cultures ancestors are believed to influence the lives of later generations by blessing or cursing them; in essence, acting as gods. So praying to them, presenting them with gifts, and making offerings are done to appease them and gain their favour.  This is where showing respect morphs into worship and since Christians are told to worship only the Creator God of the universe, in whose image we are made, then it would be wrong for a Christian to engage in such things.
The Bible tells us in Exodus 20:3-6 that we are not to worship any god other than the Lord God Almighty.  Furthermore, since diviners and sorcerers were thought to be able to contact the dead, they were also expressly forbidden by God (Exodus 22:18; Leviticus 19:32, 20:6, 27; Deuteronomy 18:10-11; 1 Samuel 28:3; Jeremiah 27:9-10).
The belief that spirits continue to reside on earth after death and influence the lives of others is not Christian.  The Bible shows that the dead are unable to influence the living.  They can no more bless or curse than they can breathe.  The dead know nothing at all.  They do not deserve any form of worship, and that includes praying to them.  We are to pray to God, through Christ Jesus.  He is the only mediator between God and men.
You say that during the Qing Dynasty, many missionaries came to China to preach, but very few Chinese believed in Christianity. Their attempt to turn China into a Christian country failed.  Then you ask What do you think of this matter?
I think the fact that Christians in China are persecuted and forbidden by the Government to worship in freedom is testimony to the fact that those early missionaries did not fail.  It also speaks volumes about the people who wish to suppress freedom of religion.  What are they afraid of?


How do the proponents of the idea that salvation once received cannot be lost explain Hebrews 6:4-6 and 10:26-29? How do the proponents of the idea that salvation once received cannot be lost explain the following verses:

Hebrews 6:4-6:

  For [it is] impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have
  tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy
  Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the
  world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto
  repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh,
  and put [him] to an open shame.

and Hebrews 10:26-29:

  For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of
  the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain
  fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall
  devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses' law died without mercy
  under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose
  ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of
  God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was
  sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of
  grace?

It seems to me that both places are about Christians who had once received salvation, but later lost it due to their change in mind or in faith.

When looking at the overall context of all the warnings in Hebrews we have a situation for the unpardonable sin of fully rejecting Christ even under the sanctifying work and demonstrable power of the Holy Spirit making it absolute, thus unforgivable.  It represents a full grown and stubborn unbelief in the face of a long season of powerful grace and the Spirit's manifested power.

All one has to do to understand these verses is to 'think Judas'.  Although never properly sanctified by inner regeneration, his mind had been in a sense 'sanctified'.  What confuses some is they automatically think a person can experience no kind of sanctification except after justification but this is not correct. For example a 'unbelieving' spouse is sanctified in some ways by the believing spouse to make a marriage holy even when one spouse is not inwardly sanctified.

  For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. (NIV 1 Corinthians 7:14)

In the same way by being with the Lord every day, having himself been given gifts to preach and to cast out demons when the Apostles were sent out two by two, Judas had 'tasted of the heavenly gift'. Judas was made 'partaker of the Holy Ghost'. Judas certainly 'tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come'. However, Judas was a bad field that did not produce a good crop and was never 'saved'. Therefore, as Judas 'fell away' it was really not possible to 'renew him again unto repentance' seeing that in his unforgivable rejection of eternal life, Judas was  'crucifying the Son of God afresh' leading him into the bowels of hell, which he himself under the horrible misery of sin cast his own life into.

The very same dangers faced many of the Hebrews soon after the resurrection of Christ.  The gospel had been recently been received by many Hebrews, but their faith was uncertain and some were tempted to reject Christ over Moses.  Such wickedness was equal with Judas' rejection. Even after they had witnessed the power of the gospel in an unusual manner.  Not only witnessing the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the evidence of the risen Christ or testimony of Apostles concerning it.  They also had the word of God proclaimed to them in fulfillment of all that the prophets had spoken and now unveiled by gifted men animated by the Spirit and wisdom and knowledge.  If they were to reject Christ, in preference to Moses, they would be no different than Judas.

Even the history of the first generation of Jews under Moses typified their situation and Hebrews recalls the story forming the context of these verses.  For example, 'What is the deliverance from Egypt but a display of God power?' Did not God provide a means to deliver the minds and bodies of the Jews from the hands of Pharaoh by his mighty hand and then present an opportunity of faith during the testing in the desert? The first deliverance through the Red Sea did not represent regeneration, the second crossing through the Jordan did, as only then did they entered a land flowing with milk and honey, wherein the battle of sanctification would begin. (i.e. the kingdom of God) How did those Jews respond to this tasting of the power of God and sanctification caused by the release under the tyrannical powers of Pharaoh? (Pharaoh is representing the Devil's malice and power to blind a man from having opportunity of faith and rest by faith).  Well they did not believe, so God destroyed them! In other words, nearly the whole generation was a Judas, a reprobate, an unsaved wicked sinner despite the power of God in saving them externally and sanctifying their minds, in order to have the option of worshiping and serving the One true God by the rest of faith.

This is the context of Hebrews and all the warnings in it.  Early on in the book we find this argument so clearly laid out.  Therefore only those who have genuine faith proven by souls that do not fall away are saved. Those who never had faith prove it by their actions. No matter their confession the Jews in the desert were unwilling to believe so they died:

  See to it, brothers and sisters, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God. But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called “Today,” so that none of you may be hardened by sin’s deceitfulness.
  We have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original conviction firmly to the very end.
  As has just been said:
  “Today, if you hear his voice,
  do not harden your hearts
  as you did in the rebellion.”
  Who were they who heard and rebelled? Were they not all those Moses led out of Egypt? And with whom was he angry for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies perished in the wilderness?
  And to whom did God swear that they would never enter his rest if not to those who disobeyed?
  So we see that they were not able to enter, because of their unbelief. (NIV Hebrews 3:12-19)

The truth is those who believe that every true believer will persevere by faith (or once saved always saved) these verses pose no difficulty whatsoever.  On the contrary they are the most clear descriptions of cursed men who produce nothing but thorns even when tasting the Spirit in external convictions, powerful displays and convincing demonstration on the truthfulness of the gospel, which they fully reject.


Is there Biblical justification for asserting that Satan directly causes natural evil? Believers tend to assert about how God is completely sovereign over everything, including earthquakes, diseases, floods etc. These events are what people would consider natural evil, in contrast to moral evil, which includes murder, rape, torture, human sacrifice, genocides etc.

But it is Biblically possible that there is a secondary, direct cause to this natural evil (excluding all " natural evil" events that are directly caused by divine judgement like the Ten Plagues, the disasters in the Book of Revelation, the hailstones at Gibeon etc.)? Just like how there is a secondary, direct cause to moral evil, such as depraved humans and the demons that influence/possess them, even though God is still recognised as having the ultimate authority over this?

It's a major plot element in the Book of Job and I don't think it's the first time Satan and his forces has done this (Job 1:7, 2:2). After all, don't all natural disasters and illnesses in some way undermine our confidence and well-being and are all under God's will?

Satan is a metaphysical being, like God, and all laws of nature have underlying metaphysical causes, one of which includes Logos (I guess Satan is anti-Logos since He wants to control natural laws to create unnecessary disorder/destroy nature?). He's also recognised as having control over the world and the air, as attested by John the apostle. Some say that I'm attributing too much power to Satan. Yes, I recognise that's he not omnipotent or omniscient and that he does not (nor do any of the angels) directly create. However, I strongly suspect that he can pervert what's already existing.

An analogy I can think of is that God created viruses, the cells that form the basis for cancerous tumours etc. like any other living organism. But Satan swooped in and manipulated them to attack other living beings. Just like how he manipulates the biochemistry of human brains to make individuals commit abominable sins against others and God. If any human manipulated nature to harm others, they would justifiably be called a bio-terrorist. So why can't the same logic apply to beings in the metaphysical realm?

Am I wrong/too superstitous for thinking this way?

Is there Biblical justification for asserting that Satan directly causes natural evil?

Both in Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions, the answer would seem to be in the affirmative.

The introduction of the Prayer Against Satan and the Rebellious Angels Published by Order of His Holiness Pope Leo XIII, makes note that his Holiness Pope Leo
XIII believed that the Devil and his agents can cause violent storms and calamities.

  The following is a simple exorcism prayer that can be said by priests or laity. The term “exorcism” does not always denote a solemn exorcism involving a person possessed by the devil. In general, the term denotes prayers to “curb the power of the devil and prevent him from doing harm.” As St. Peter had written in Holy Scripture, “your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour.” (1 St. Peter 5,8)

  The Holy Father exhorts priests to say this prayer as often as possible, as a simple exorcism to curb the power of the devil and prevent him from doing harm. The faithful also may say it in their own name, for the same purpose, as any approved prayer. Its use is recommended whenever action of the devil is suspected, causing malice in men, violent temptations and even storms and various calamities. It could be used as a solemn exorcism (an official and public ceremony, in Latin), to expel the devil. It would then be said by a priest, in the name of the Church and only with a Bishop's permission. - A Simple Exorcism for Priests or Laity

As for the biblical basis of this belief, we could go to the Book of Job and the Apostle St. Paul for a definitive answer.

  2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience. - Ephesians 2:2 (KJV)

Thus we see that for some, St. Paul is referring to the ”Powers” of the air as being no less then the evil spirits of this world.

The fallen spirits also try to impress us with their power of over nature: “The coming of the lawless one by the activity of Satan will be with all power and with pretended signs and wonders” (2 Thess 2:9). St. Paul adduces here the sign for the necessary discernment: “Lawlessness”. The works they do may indeed be impressive, but we have to watch out, first of all, to verify whether the “fruits” are good or bad: Do they submit to the laws? Do they recognize the legitimate authority? Are they obedient, for “the prince of the power of the air… is now at work in the sons of disobedience” (Eph 2:2)?

  From six calamities he will rescue you; in seven no harm will touch you. - Job 5:19

The whole Book of Job deals with God’s servant Job and the calamities provoked by Satan against the Man of God. Job is presented as a good and prosperous family man who is beset by Satan with God's permission with horrendous disasters that take away all that he holds dear, including his offspring, his health, and his property.

  Job's Unparalleled Calamities

  Everything is done to heighten and intensify the impression of Job's calamities. Let us note their salient features.

  I. THEY OCCUR AT A SEASON OF FESTIVITY. It was a feast-day, and Job's whole family was gathered together in his eldest son's house. Then of all times the affectionate father would be least prepared for ominous rumours of calamity. The thunderbolt fell from the cloudless blue sky. Without a note of warning, the fearful storm burnt in an overwhelming deluge. This is a lesson against trusting to prosperity, as though it contained a promise of its own certain continuance. But it is no unmerciful arrangement of Providence that the dark future is hidden from us. We are made sad because

  "We look before and after." If we saw all the future, we could not endure the present.

  II. THEY OCCUR IN RAPID SUCCESSION. So closely do these calamities follow one upon another that, before the first messenger has told his tale, a second herald arrives with more evil news, followed as speedily by a third, and he after no more delay by the last, with his most dreadful message. It has often been noticed how troubles come in batches. In Job's case we can see the reason. One fearful power of malignity is behind the whole series.

  III. THEY COME FROM VARIOUS QUARTERS. Though Satan is the ultimate cause of all the calamities, he does not inflict any of them with his own hand. He keeps that hidden, and finds means to send emissaries from all quarters - Arabs from the south fall on the home farm; lightning from heaven smites the sheep on the downs; three robber-bands of roving Chaldees from the north swoop down on the caravan of camels that carries Job's wealth of merchandise; and, worse than all else, a hurricane from the desert smites and fells the house where Job's sons and daughters are feasting. Who can dwell in security when trouble may come in so many directions? It is impossible for the strongest man to fortify himself against it. None of us can do more than make reasonable preparations, which may all prove useless. But all may trust the providence of him who rules wind and storm and heart of man, and without whose permission not a hair of our head can be touched.

  IV. THEY ARE AGGRAVATED AS THEY PROCEED. The worst comes last. It is terrible for a rich man to see his wealth melting before his eyes in a few moments. This was Antonio's trouble when his fleet of merchandise was destroyed ('Merchant of Venice'), but it was not so fearful as Malcolm's, when all his children were murdered at once ('Macbeth'), or the late Archbishop Tait's, when one after another his children died of an epidemic of fever. Let the impoverished man be thankful if his family is spared to him.

Job’s unparalleled calamities obviously came from Satan, but Satan tries to as usual hide the fact of his involvement.

  Characteristics of Evil Spirits

  According to the prayers of the Church, evil spirits are bodiless, and immaterial created spirits. The Holy Scripture reveals to us what characteristics they possess. Evil spirits have mind and will (2 Corinthians 2:11). They know God, and this knowledge fills them with fear: "You believe that there is one God...the demons also believe and tremble," writes Holy Apostle James (2:19). More than once, evil angels confessed Christ the Savior as the Son of God (St. Matthew 8:29; Saint Mark 1:24, for example).

  Evil spirits know themselves, of course, for if the spirit of man is conscious of what it knows, then certainly the same must be said of evil spirits. Evil spirits know the condition of the present world, as we see in the Book of the Prophet Job. The evil one traversed the world and observed all people, and spoke of this to the Lord. The Lord did not refute these observations as false (Job 1:7-12), though clearly, the devil did not know the soul of Job; just as he and his demons can never approach the nature of our souls and know them. He can only judge from our deeds, actions and inclinations what the condition of our soul is, as the Holy Fathers tell us. Saint John Cassian says, "But the demons cannot possibly come near to those thoughts which have not yet come forth from the inmost recesses of the soul. And the thoughts too, which they suggest, whether they are actually or in a kind of way embraced, are discovered by them not from the nature of the soul itself, i.e., that inner inclination which lies concealed so to speak in the very marrow, but from the motions and signs given by the outward man." (First Conference of Abba Sereneus).

  Saint John the Solitary also tells us:"the devil cannot touch the nature of the soul, nor can he draw nigh it at all to harm it..." The devil does not touch or see the soul, but the members of the body only...and by harming one of the members he disturbs the thoughts which are active within them. For indeed, if he could draw nigh the soul so as to harm it, then he would also be able to harm it after it departed from the body, but this he would have to do while being unable to see it and having no power over it, because his power extends only as far as the body." (Sixth Dialogue With Thomasos).

  The fallen spirits know something of future events, but not from real knowledge or prophecy. They can surmise what will occur when it is going to take place from definite, unchanging causes. The general future is known to them from God's revelation (3 Ki. 22:21-22 Orthodox Bible), and also from the observation of man's character. Once, a demon drew near to Saint Andrew the Fool-for-Christ and told him of the moral disorder of Christians in the last days, "In those days," the demon said, "people will be more evil than I am, and little children will surpass old people in wickedness. Then, I will not teach people anything; they themselves will fulfill my will." Saint Andrew responded: "How do you know this, for a demon does not know anything by prophecy or forevision?" To this, the demon replied: "Our father, Satan, conjectures these things and passes it on to us."

  Though they have a mind, evil spirits have distorted it so much that, instead of the basic quality of the mind striving toward truth the main characteristic of the demon's mind is hatred toward truth. For this reason, the evil one is called "the father of lies" in the Gospel (Saint John 8:44) and "deceiver" in the Book of Revelation (12:9). Having hardened their will in unyielding evil, the demons now direct their activity toward evil alone, but demons also have a certain freedom, because they can select one evil out of many. Instead of love, the being of the devil is filled with irreconcilable enmity toward and His works. We have a constant enemy in the evil one, and therefore the Holy Apostle Paul advises Christians to array themselves in complete armor for struggle against the devil (Ephesians 6:12-17), and Christ commanded us to pray constantly to God, our Father, "...deliver us from the evil one."

  The Dwelling Place of Evil Spirits

  While Satan was an obedient angel of God, he dwelt in heaven. He exalted himself higher than all spirits and thought to become an independent power. Because of this, the Lord cast him down from heaven (St. Luke 10:18), together with the angels which had followed him in his opposition to the Creator (Ephesians 6:12; Rev. 12:7). Since then, the abode of the devil has been the "abyss" or "space", which, in common usage, is called "the air." The correctness of this idea is evident from the Holy Scripture. In the Book of Job, the devil himself testifies that he went round about the whole world, passing through the air (Job 1:7; 2:2). The Holy Apostle Paul speaks of the fallen spirits dwelling in the air: "For we struggle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places" (Ephesians 6:12). Here is how Saint Athanasios the Great explains this place: "The devil, the enemy of our race, having fallen from heaven, roams in the space of this lower air where, ruling over other demons...with their cooperation, he deceives people with visions and strives to hinder those who struggle higher, or which Saint Paul says, "According to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now works in the children of disobedience" (Ephesians 2:2). In the interpretation of Psalm 41, Saint John Chrysostom says, "How many demons are borne in this air? How many adverse powers? If God were to allow them to show their countenances, we would all be driven insane" (Works, Vol. 1, p.722). Saint Anthony the Great says simply that "demons are born in the air" (Works, Pt. 3, p.22). If evil spirits fill the air, then it is clear that they surround us from all sides. Saint Theophan the Recluse says of this: "The usual form of translation and understanding of the word "sky" signifies that spirits fly in the air, and just as air embraces us everywhere, so also do the spirits of malice draw near us, like mosquitoes in a damp place" (Interpretation of the Epistle to Ephesians, p. 412). Thus, in the Lord's Prayer, we are taught to pray, "...deliver us from the evil one." - Concerning Evil Spirits and Demons - Internal Demons


Are priests who committed a sin together able to validly administer the Sacrament of Reconciliation to each other? The Vatican recently released a report about the Holy See's knowledge and involvement in former cardinal Theodore McCarrick's rise to prominence despite allegations of sexual misconduct. The report quotes a letter from a psychiatrist who had been treating a priest who revealed an incident in which

...the young priest was shocked when he walked into the bedroom and found Bishop McCarrick engaging in sexual relations with another priest...My patient noted that the bishop and the other priest later administered the Sacrament of
Reconciliation to each other.
Report on the Holy See's Institutional Knowledge and Decision-Making Related to Former Cardinal Theodore Edgar McCarrick (1930 to 2017), p. 121

Obviously it is normal for priests and bishops to administer the Sacrament of Reconciliation to each other. However, is it valid for priests who committed a sin together to administer the Sacrament of Reconciliation to each other? Or must they seek the sacrament from a priest who was not involved in the sin?
It seems odd to "confess" a sin which the priest you are confessing to is obviously already aware of the sin since he committed the same sin. Moreover, in such a case it would be difficult/unlikely that the priest administering the sacrament would be able to assign an appropriate penance ("ah, just say a Hail Mary and you're good"), offer good advice to avoid the sin in the future, etc. Is there anything in canon law which forbids such a confession, or at least a recommendation to seek the sacrament from a priest who was not involved?

The case you describe is explicitly forbidden and declared invalid in canon law. (The sixth commandment is against adultery.)

can. 977 CIC The absolution of an accomplice in a sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue is invalid except in danger of death.

Additionally a violation of this rule is punished by one of the most severe sentence of the church.

can. 1378 §1 CIC A priest who acts against the prescript of can. 977 incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.

So in the case described in the question both participants did not get the absolution, but incured (without a extra process) excommunication with all its severe consequences. (Something else may apply if there was an extenuating circumstance we do not know of, can. 1324 § 3 CIC. This may be relevant esp. for the victim of the sexual abuse.)
As this is explicitly regulated for sins against the sixth commandment and there is no similiar norm for other sins, the absolution of a participant in any other sin is valid. I fully agree that it is not a good idea to do that.
The norm dates back to the apostolic constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae of Pope Benedict XIV. 1741. In this constitution he ruled comprehensivly about sexual relations in context of confession.
The rule was retained in the CIC 1917. When the current CIC 1983 was draftet, there were discussion whether to expand this to all mortal sins or at least to abortion. They leaved it as it was, having in mind the specific historic situation of Sacramentum Poenitentiae and the freedom of choosing a confessor for the faithful (see can. 991 CIC). Seemingly they saw only a necessity for such a rule in the case of sins against the sixth commandment.

My source for the historic explanation is: Althaus, Commentary on can. 977 CIC. in: Klaus Lüdicke (Ed.): Münsterischer Kommentar zum Codex Iuris Canonici. unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Rechtslage in Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz. Ludgerus Verlag. Essen, Germany (state: Juanuary 2008)


If a Catholic converts to some Protestant religion is he excommunicated or given any official rebuke by the Church? Contemplating the question do Catholics recognize Protestants as Christian here:Does the Catholic Church officially recognize Protestants as Christians?

I am not sure what an official church policy is since the answers that say yes are ambiguous in the details and the no answer has generated great dispute in chat and comments,
Therefore I thought asking a related question from the opposite perspective may gather more enlightenment.

Does the Catholic Church punish a Catholic who converts to any religion claiming to also be Christian?

This is a legal issue (since "punishments" are legal consequences), so we'll need to look at canon law.

When one leaves the Catholic Church, one may be rejecting the Christian Church and her teachings altogether, or (as seems more likely in the case you mention) simply rejecting certain of her truths and her ability to authoritatively speak the Truth. The former is technically known as apostasy; the latter may be either schism, heresy, or both. Canon 751 of the Code of Canon Law of the Latin Church states:

  Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

The distinction between heresy and schism is mostly that heresy requires "obstinacy"; that is, it requires that one be specifically told that a declared belief or doubt is contrary to Catholic doctrine, and then one must persist in that belief or doubt. Schism simply requires that one, in effect, believe that it's not necessary to follow the Pope and be part of the Church. For the remainder of this discussion, I'll assume that heresy is out of the question, and what is at issue is schism.

(Note: the noted canonist Dr. Edward Peters appears to agree that joining another church is a schismatic act; he refers to Rod Dreher's act of joining the Russian Orthodox Church, for example, as an act of schism.)

Formally speaking, one who commits an act of schism is subject to latae sententiae excommunication, that is, to being excommunicated without the act needing to be declared:

  ... an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.

(Canon 1364)

It should go without saying that since a schismatic has voluntarily declared themselves no longer part of the Church, the Church may in turn declare the same thing—not that the individual will feel its effect immediately; but the hope is that if or when the person may return to the Catholic Church, they may feel the gravity of their action, in that they can't just "come back" but must first have their excommunication lifted.

However, it isn't that easy and straightforward. Canons 1321–1324 establish some pretty strict limitations on when excommunications and similar penalties may be imposed. Probably the strictest limitation of all is Canon 1323, section 2:

  The following are not subject to a penalty when they have violated a law or precept: ... a person who without negligence was ignorant that he or she violated a law or precept; inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance.

If this is not specific enough, canon 1324 goes further, specifying in section 1 note 9 and section 3 that

  a person who without negligence did not know that a penalty was attached to a law or precept ... is not bound by a latae sententiae penalty.

And since, indeed, most people are unaware of the punishment to be imposed by Canon 751, it is generally inapplicable (unless of course the violator is someone like a priest, bishop, or theologian, who certainly ought to be aware of this in particular).


Which denominations would say that Jesus weeps for the souls in Hell? I was reading about a girl named Angelica, who claimed to have visited Heaven and Hell. I am touched from her testimony that Jesus was weeping when they were visiting Hell.

When the Lord weeps, it’s different than we do.  He would weep with
this pain in His heart and He would sob profoundly.  “I did not create
hell for humanity,” Jesus said.  So I asked Him, “Then why is humanity
here, Lord?” He answered, “Daughter, I created hell for satan and his
angels, who are the demons; (Matt.  25:41) but, because of sin and the
lack of repentance, humanity ends here, and there are more that perish
than those who reach My glory!” (Matt 7:14) He continued weeping and
it would hurt me so much to see how He cried.  “Daughter, I gave My
life for humanity, so that it would not perish, so that it would not
end up in this place.  I gave My life out of love and mercy, so that
humanity would proceed to repentance and could enter the Kingdom of
Heaven.”  Jesus would moan as someone who could no longer withstand
the pain, that’s how much pain He felt watching the people here.

Is it possible that Jesus is weeping right now whenever(not always) he sees souls going to Hell?
I mean, if Jesus happens to see the souls being tortured in Hell, would he weep as described by Angelica?
Which denominations believe that Jesus would weep for the souls in Hell? (I think I remember once a Seventh-Day Adventist preacher was preaching something similar to this.)

The Scripture does tell us that Jesus can be sorrowful enough to cry:

  When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who had come along with her also weeping, he was deeply moved in spirit and troubled. 34 “Where have you laid him?” he asked.

  “Come and see, Lord,” they replied.

  Jesus wept.
  John 11:33-35

Jesus was on his way to see Lazarus. He had just discovered that he had died and all of his family was there weeping when Jesus arrived. Jesus was moved, as any normal person would be, and wept as well. You probably missed this because it is the shortest verse in the Bible. ;)

Jesus certainly has the emotional capacity to cry, but does He still cry concerning the souls in Hell (or will he depending on belief)?

We know the Lord wishes that all would be saved:

  God our Savior ... wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.
  1 Timothy 2:4

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

But in my opinion, this doesn't mean He cries about it when He thinks about those who are not.

However, the image of Jesus that Christianity paints is of a man with deep love for His children. It is hard to reconcile that Jesus would not cry over the souls in hell in light of the compassion and love that Christianity says He has.

We can say assuredly that not Jesus, nor anyone, will weep in the New Heaven, Earth, and Jerusalem for any sorrowful reason.

  Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God ... God himself will be with them and be their God.  ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’[cf. Isaiah 25:8] or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”
  Revelation 21:1-4

So it certainly is possible that Jesus weeps now for the lost, and even makes sense given Jesus' loving nature and certain Scriptures provided above, but we cannot Biblically argue that He will always weep for them, for in the End, there will be no mourning, crying, or pain.

As for denominations that teach this, I think this is one of those items left to the one preaching, whether they want to bring it up or not. I'm sure some catechisms and confessions of faith mention that God wants none to be lost, but I don't think they do or would mention that losing any makes Jesus cry.


Are Angels more accessible than Jesus? Why would one choose to pray to an Angel or a Guardian Angel over Jesus at times?

Some people notice that their prayers are answered on some occasions more readily from an Angel or Guardian Angel. Could it be that Angels are sometimes more accessible than Jesus or more specialized for certain tasks?

Why would this be? Since I can't imagine Jesus is busy at times nor can I imagine that he is incapable of anything.

So would this mean that it be His desire for us to form a relationship with the Angels for some reason and if so why?

Worshiping the Angels is condemned by the Bible. Colossians 2:18 says "Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind". So we can not accuse Catholics of Angel worship. The actual term used by the Catholics for Angels and Saints is veneration (Dulia in Greek). This point is reiterated by the Catholic Church over and again. Catechism of the Catholic Church mentions that "In the meantime, the whole life of the Church benefits from the mysterious and powerful help of angels" (Part One :The Profession of Faith, Section Two, Chapter One,Article I,Paragraph 5, Verse 334). So the Bible prohibits Angel worship and the Catholic Church says that it benefits from the Angels.

How can we understand this? The Angels have a mediation power. They are requesting to God for our cause but do not have the ability to interfere with the decision making process of God. The need for such a mediation arises from the fact that humans who are sinners and imperfect are not worthy of direct contact with God. We better channel our requests through a mediator who at least had a vision of God. The mediators are themselves imperfect and not at par with God in any way. But at least such an attempt looks more humble.


Paying respects during grace, benediction, etc. as a non-Christian? I'll make this clear, I'm not Christian, I don't have any religion.  But I respect all forms of religion regardless of what the beliefs may entail.   As a Boy Scout in my younger days I was taught to be reverent and to respect all religions, so I've been curious about this particular quandary I've been in for a bit.

During grace, or benediction, when the speaker makes a prayer (I assume that is what it is) and everyone else is respectingly bowing their heads and closing their eyes (I think this is the right way, correct me if I am wrong), am I in the wrong if I do as everyone else does?  Meaning, as a non-Christian, am I offending Christians if I do what they are doing even if I am not Christian? Is there a way that's okay for me to do as to not disrespect others?

While there may be some differences in how some particular Christian groups respond in such a situation, it's safe to say that the vast majority will not be offended by what you're doing. Bowing your head is certainly a sign of respect - primarily to God, but also to the community you are with. In most cases it would be neither here nor there if you close your eyes  or not - perhaps whatever you find most comfortable (when people do this, it's usually just to help them focus rather following a rule to do so).

One part of things that could potentially be more of an issue is where there are "call and response" type prayers - a prayer leader initiates and the congregation responds, whether merely with "Amen" (a very common response to "Grace" in a corporate setting) or some other liturgically required response (as in some benedictions). In this case, it is probably preferable that you only respond with what you yourself agree to. "Amen" actually means "Let it be so", so if you don't agree with what was just prayed, then rather than just echoing it with everyone else, a respectful silence would avoid hypocrisy.


What happens to retired Popes like Pope Benedict? Does the pope get paid for being the pope?

The above question is answered very well and shows that the Pope genuinely has no personal assets. He is well cared for by the Vatican.

But what about the recently resigned Pope Benedict. He is no longer Pope and likely has very little or even no personal assets. What will happen to him?

This is interesting to know because I think only two or three Popes have actually ever resigned. Most die in office. So there is no Papal retirement fund and I would think not really any official or traditional way of handling this.

While it's not one of our usual sources for Christian views, CNN did an article discussing this, and given that this is the first retired Pope in 600 years, and the occurrence is extremely rare, their answer is actually pretty good...

His needs will still be seen to.  There is no dictate as to what he should do, per Catholic doctrine, but he has indicated what he intends to do.

First, the statement that his needs will be seen to are addressed here:

  The 85-year-old will first leave Rome to go to the papal seaside
  retreat, Castle Gandolfo, until a successor is named. Then he will
  head to the Mater Ecclesiae (Mother of the Church) building, which
  formerly housed a cloistered convent in the Vatican gardens.

Later on, the article explores what he intends to do in this retreat - Devote his life to prayer:

  In the chapel the pope might say Mass every day for his small
  household, said Monsignor Rick Hilgartner, executive director of the
  U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Secretariat of Divine Worship.

  Benedict has said he will devote his life to prayer. There is no
  playbook for the life of prayer for a retired pope, Hilgartner said.
  "Nothing beyond the normal routine" for a monk or a priest.

  He said that would include "prayer throughout the day and the liturgy
  of the hours, morning prayer, evening prayer, Mass every day."

As for his financial needs:

  There may be a stipend for the retired pope. Italian news outlets have
  reported retired clerics receive up to €2,500 a month. Hilgartner said
  Benedict won't need much money if any at all. The Vatican will take
  care of his lodging and his health care.

  "He didn't have a pension because the presumption was he would be in
  office until he died," Hilgartner said. "His needs will be cared for.
  Because of the way he'll be living, those needs will be somewhat
  limited."

Historically, however, for how the other Popes that have retired....

St. Pontian was martyred in 236
Benedict IX retired to the Abbey of Grottaferrata, where he repented of his sins, officially resigned as pope and spent the rest of his life doing penance.
St. Celestine V resigned on Dec. 13, 1294, and returned to his monastery. His successor, Pope Boniface VIII, had him imprisoned so that there would be no attempt to place him on the throne again.


What do 1st century extra-biblical sources say about hell? Do we have any information about what 1st century Christians and Jews believed about hell?  I know what the Bible says on the subject, and am curious about the extra-biblical context.

Early Christians:

Epistle of Barnabas (70 - 130 AD):

  The way of darkness is crooked, and it is full of cursing. It is the
  way of eternal death with punishment. (“Epistle of Barnabas”)

Ignatius of Antioch (110 AD):

  Corrupters of families will not inherit the kingdom of God. And if
  they who do these things according to the flesh suffer death. how much
  more if a man corrupt by evil reaching the faith of God. for the sake
  of which Jesus Christ was crucified? A man become so foul will depart
  into unquenchable fire: and so will anyone who listens to him. (Letter
  to the Ephesians 16:1-2)

Clement of Rome (150 AD):

  If we do the will of Christ, we shall obtain rest; but if not, if we
  neglect his commandments, nothing will rescue us from eternal
  punishment (“Second Clement” 5:5)

  But when they see how those who have sinned and who have denied Jesus
  by their words or by their deeds are punished with terrible torture in
  unquenchable fire, the righteous, who have done good, and who have
  endured tortures and have hated the luxuries of life, will give glory
  to their God saying, 'There shall be hope for him that has served God
  with all his heart!' (“Second Clement” 17:7)

The Martyrdom of Polycarp (155 AD):

  Fixing their minds on the grace of Christ, [the martyrs] despised
  worldly tortures and purchased eternal life with but a single hour. To
  them, the fire of their cruel torturers was cold. They kept before
  their eyes their escape from the eternal and unquenchable fire
  (“Martyrdom of Polycarp” 2:3)

Irenaeus (189 AD):

  Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according
  to the will of the invisible Father, 'every knee should bow, of things
  in heaven,, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that
  every tongue should confess' to Him, and that He should execute just
  judgment towards all; that He may send 'spiritual wickednesses,' and
  the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the
  ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into
  everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer
  immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His
  commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning
  of their Christian course, and others from the date of their
  repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory. (“Against
  Heresies” 1:10:10)

  The penalty increases for those who do not believe the Word of God
  and despise his coming. . . . [I]t is not merely temporal, but
  eternal. To whomsoever the Lord shall say, ‘Depart from me, accursed
  ones, into the everlasting fire,’ they will be damned forever
  (“Against Heresies” 4:28:2)

Tertullian (197 AD):

  These have further set before us the proofs He has given of His
  majesty in judgments by floods and fires, the rules appointed by Him
  for securing His favor, as well as the retribution in store for the
  ignoring, forsaking and keeping them, as being about at the end of all
  to adjudge His worshippers to everlasting life, and the wicked to the
  doom of fire at once without ending and without break, raising up
  again all the dead from the beginning, reforming and renewing them
  with the object of awarding either recompense. (“Apology” 18:3)

  Then will the entire race of men be restored to receive its just
  deserts according to what it has merited in this period of good and
  evil, and thereafter to have these paid out in an immeasurable and
  unending eternity. Then there will be neither death again nor
  resurrection again, but we shall be always the same as we are now,
  without changing. The worshipers of God shall always be with God,
  clothed in the proper substance of eternity. But the godless and those
  who have not turned wholly to God will be punished in fire equally
  unending, and they shall have from the very nature of this fire,
  divine as it were, a supply of incorruptibility (“Apology” 44:12–13)

  Therefore after this there is neither death nor repeated
  resurrections, but we shall be the same that we are now, and still
  unchanged--the servants of God, ever with God, clothed upon with the
  proper substance of eternity; but the profane, and all who are not
  true worshippers of God, in like manner shall be consigned to the
  punishment of everlasting fire--that fire which, from its very nature
  indeed, directly ministers to their incorruptibility. ("Apology"
  48:12)

There are many more but I think these should help you.

As for Jewish sources, I am still looking for sources. Once I do, I will post them here.

I am still looking for good material from the 1st century about hell from Jewish sources. It just so happens that the concept of Heaven and Hell is a more Christian concept than it ever was Jewish and rabbis have had very little to say, if anything at all, over the vast history of Judaism (which is still a lot but little compared to Christianity). Anyway, I found this page that you will find helpful, I think:

Heaven and Hell in Jewish Tradition.

Excerpt from the above link:

  There are, however, several biblical references to a place called
  Sheol (cf. Numbers 30, 33). It is described as a region "dark and
  deep," "the Pit," and "the Land of Forgetfulness," where human beings
  descend after death. The suggestion is that in the netherworld of
  Sheol, the deceased, although cut off from God and humankind, live on
  in some shadowy state of existence.   While this vision of Sheol is
  rather bleak (setting precedents for later Jewish and Christian ideas
  of an underground hell) there is generally no concept of judgment or
  reward and punishment attached to it. In fact, the more pessimistic
  books of the Bible, such as Ecclesiastes and Job, insist that all of
  the dead go down to Sheol, whether good or evil, rich or poor, slave
  or free man (Job 3:11-19).

And then:

  The development of the concept of life after death is related to the
  development of eschatology (speculation about the "end of days") in
  Judaism. Beginning in the period following the destruction of the
  First Temple in Jerusalem (586 BCE), several of the classical
  Israelite prophets (Amos, Hosea, and Isaiah) began forecasting a
  better future for their people.   However, with repeated military
  defeats and episodes of exile and dislocation culminating in the
  destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, Jewish thinkers began to
  lose hope in any immediate change, instead investing greater
  expectations in a messianic future and in life after death. This was
  coupled with the introduction into Judaism of Hellenistic notions of
  the division of the material, perishable body and the spiritual,
  eternal soul.    The catastrophe of 70 CE caused a theological crisis.
  How could it be that the God of Israel would simply allow His
  sanctuary to be destroyed and His people to be vanquished at the hands
  of the Roman Empire? While the rabbis often claimed that it was the
  Israelites' sinfulness that led God to allow it to be defeated
  (mi-p'nei hataeinu, "because of our sins"), it was more difficult to
  explain why good and decent individual Jews were made to suffer.

It talks about Jewish "tradition" but that's because the Tanakh does not address heaven and hell, as we understand it, in much detail.

The above is not in any way "the" Jewish belief. Its just an article giving you insight into some of the thought and discussions of the Talmud and the rabbis.

If and when I find direct quotes, I will put them here. But I really hope this helps you in your study/research.


Are 'treasures' all Earthly goods or wealth? When it is often repeated in the Bible that we must cast aside our treasures to gain an everlasting treasure in Heaven, does this mean ALL worldly possessions or just money? Do modern desirables (ipods, Playstations, cars, gadgets, incredibly detailed statues, watches etc.etc.etc.) count? I assume they do, just checking...

If I read these Scriptures correctly What Jesus considers treasure to be is the things you value the most.
Matthew 12:35  KJV

A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.

Matthew 6:21  KJV

For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

For Satan as for many people today their treasure is power and or authority:
Luke 4:6  KJV

And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.

How Man treasures power is portrayed in the exchange between Pilate and Jesus:
John 19:10 and 11  KJV

10 Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?
11  Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.
Even today look at politics and how so many are willing to risk their monetary fortunes to gain a position in Government, and the amount of money some contributors are willing to donate in hopes of gaining political influence.

In answer to your question in my feeble mind as far as the Kingdom goes it probably  has to do with whatever it is that you desire more than obedience to God.


On what bases do Eastern-Orthodox reject total depravity? Why do Eastern-Orthodox reject the doctrine of total depravity?

Considering evidence like, Matthew 7:11,  Romans 3:10-20.

This answer summarizes portions of the argument against total depravity presented by Alexander J. Renault in his book entitled "Reconsidering TULIP".

Eastern Orthodox Christians agree that sin has weakened human beings so that we are unable to come to God apart from His grace in our lives. But we diverge on whether this is a special grace given only to an elect few or a general grace given to everyone—with Orthodox Christians firmly believing the latter. Furthermore, Eastern Orthodox Christians do not believe that human beings are unable to come to God due to any fundamental change in human nature (i.e., original sin), but rather due to the environment of sin and death in which we operate. Humans thus sin because of garbage that is foreign to human nature, not because of sin being intrinsic to human nature.

Ontological Problems

Leaving aside epistemological problems with total depravity (it's a circular argument due to its implied claim of noetic corruption), there are serious ontological problems dealing with human nature, some of which go back to the early Church where differences in theology and anthropology arose due to differences in Greek vs. Latin thought. I do not have enough time to fully develop these arguments and as such will leave them as bullets:

Humans cannot be intrinsically sinful in their essence (i.e., "sinful nature"), lest God be the creator of sin.

The most prevalent objection to this is that human beings were created with a good nature but that nature changed.

A nature cannot change itself. A rock is still a rock even if all rocks are destroyed. The essence of a thing remains.
Only God can change a thing's essence (or nature).

If God changed human beings' essence, then He is still the author of sin.

The Church has historically taught that God created all human beings with a good nature. Humans are created in God's image—we are icons of God.

Humans are bound by sin and corruption, but this is like burying a gold bar in a pile of horse manure—it doesn't change the fact that there is gold (the essence has not changed).
Sin has no power to destroy God's creation nor to alter it.

Total depravity confuses person with nature.

Early Greek-speaking Christians used the terms hypostasis (ὑπόστασις) for "person" and ousia (οὐσία) for essence (or nature). The word "person" and the Latin concept is part of the problem here, compared to the Greek word and concept of hypostasis, but there isn't time nor space to elaborate on this here.

As a notable example of this, the doctrine of the Trinity was formulated in early Christianity stating that God is one in essence (ousia), but with three persons (hypostases).

Choice is a function of personhood, not nature. As such, it is incorrect to say that human beings have a corrupt nature that makes us unable to choose anything other than sin.

As an example, holiness is part of God's nature. Thus it cannot be separated from the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit (persons). On the other hand, "incarnation" is a personal attribute of the Son.
Sin is a personal attribute, not natural/essential.

If human beings chose to sin from our natures, then all of our actions are simply the result of whatever our natures dictate. By that same line of reasoning, God is also not free to act outside His nature (undoubtedly some Western Christians do believe in this notion that God Himself is bound which the Cappadocian Fathers and others rejected as pagan philosophy: Ananke (Ἀνάγκη, i.e. "Necessity")), and so God Himself has no free choice.

Eastern Christians emphasize that God created and redeems by His free choice, not out of some necessity of the divine nature.

If God could not choose to do anything else because of His nature (here assuming the confusion of person with nature inherent in the doctrine of total depravity), then ultimately God is the creator of both good and evil (i.e., omnicausal).

Underlying this is a historical debate about preceding causes and free choice, but for the sake of time I'm moving on from this. Thinking through these implications is an exercise left for the reader.

If the very nature/essence of human beings is sinful, then God cannot love us because He would love sin. In order for God to "hate the sin but love the sinner", it follows that sin is distinct from (i.e. not part of) human nature.

If sin is part of human nature, then either (i) God loved humans before the fall (but not anymore) or (ii) God doesn't really love us (at least not as we are) or (iii) God doesn't love all human beings (only the elect).

If you're a staunch Calvinist, you may not have a problem with iii, but from an Orthodox perspective, this God would be a very unloving parent who makes demands from His children (e.g., repent) that they are unable to fulfill. But this would also have to mean that the elect have a different nature than other humans, which is problematic.
Underlying a lot of this are classical debates on free will (compatibilism vs. libertarianism vs. determinism). The reader is left to read philosophical works on these topics as an exercise (or check out this one-hour talk by Jerry Walls that does a decent job of addressing this from an Arminian perspective).

If Christ did not have a human nature, then He cannot save humanity.

The Church has historically taught that Jesus is fully human and fully God (this was dealt with extensively in the first few ecumenical councils). This is necessary else He could not bridge the divide between humanity and God (see Hebrews 2:17).

Jesus must have had a human nature for this to be true. And yet He was without sin. If he had a different nature from the rest of humanity, then He was not truly human. Either (i) Christ was sinful (because he had the same nature as us) or (ii) Christ wasn't fully human and thus cannot save us.
"Have this in your mind, which was also in Christ Jesus, who, existing in the form of God, didn’t consider equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to the point of death, yes, the death of the cross" (Philippians 2:5-8).

I would also recommend to the interested reader to check out James R. Payton, Jr.'s Light from the Christian East, especially chapter 6 entitled "Humanity as Created and Fallen".

Biblical Problems

Again, underdeveloped bullets are all I have time for:

Genesis 1:26-7, 31 — Humans are created in God's image, and God declared His creation "very good". In subsequent texts concerning "the fall", there is no mention of human nature being changed. In fact, Cain is told by God that he is to "rule over" sin (Gen. 4:6-7). Later in Gen. 9:6 (post-fall), God affirms to Noah that humans were created in God's image.
Proverbs 8:36 — Biblical wisdom literature indicates that sinning against God is unnatural (i.e. against human nature). As in Prov. 25:4, humans are intrinsically valuable (silver), but operate in an environment of sin and death (dross).
Mark 6:5-6 — Why would Jesus marvel at the peoples' unbelief if they were totally depraved and incapable of faith? Jesus' surprise indicates that they could and should have believed.
Romans 7:14-25 — Paul makes a clear distinction between "me" and "my flesh", indicating that it is not an intrinsic part of his nature (despite the awful translation of "flesh" as "sinful nature" by the NIV translators). I know some may use this passage as proof of total depravity (Paul could be taken to be saying he is incapable of doing good, despite this not being how this passage has historically been interpreted by the Church, e.g. see St. Chrysostom), but it is important to note Paul's careful distinctions between his personal will and how he sees "a different law in my members", not "in me", etc. Finally, in v. 24, Paul doesn't cry out to be delivered from himself (that is, his nature), but from "the body of this death".

Historical Problems

Unfortunately I don't have time to devote to this beyond saying that Augustine is largely responsible for much of these ideas, and was heavily influenced by Manichean Gnosticism and significantly toned down at the second council of Orange (specifically fatalism/predestination). The Church had historically affirmed the free will of human beings to choose God before this notable exception which came to dominate Western (Latin) theology (others have written extensively on how Augustine knew very little Greek and was trained in rhetoric and philosophy but not theology, not to mention he frequently claimed that his own teachings were speculative). But this section is unfair without additional sources, and so I commend to my readers Jaroslav Pelikan's excellent treatment in The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), especially chapter 6 on "Nature and Grace", particularly pp. 292-331.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Eastern Orthodox Christians agree that:

Humans have been weakened/wounded by sin
We have a propensity to sin and are capable of horrific evils
We cannot save ourselves and are completely dependent on God's grace (it's impossible to come to God apart from His grace)

However, Eastern Orthodox Christians disagree with some of the tenets of total depravity and must insist that:

Human nature is intrinsically good
God's grace has been freely extended to all people (not just an elect minority)
Choosing God (and thus life/grace) is not a meritorious act that detracts from God's glory or sovereignty
Jesus was fully God and fully man and had the same human nature as the rest of humanity
Jesus became a human being so that we might become [like] God, "becoming by grace what God is by nature"


Did the two sides anathematize each other in the East–West Schism of 1054? In the East–West Schism, did the two sides anathematize each other, stop considering each other brothers in Christ and members of the Body of Christ?

Strictly speaking, no.  There were mutual excommunications, but they were only intended to apply to the specific individuals involved: Leo IX excommunicated Patriarch Michael by, famously, sending a delegation that laid the bull of excommunication upon the altar of the Hagia Sophia shortly before the celebration of Divine Liturgy, while Michael in return excommunicated and anathematized the legates themselves but not all of the church of Rome.


What does the symbology in this painting of the Trinity mean? This image is in a Catholic hospital in Spokane, WA. I understand the Father/Son/Holy Spirit symbology, the ABBA reference, and the initials of the Christ. But three things in this image I cannot identify:

The dove/Holy Spirit in the circle/sphere(s)
The winged faces on the left and right of the image
The winged circle at the foot of the throne.

What do these parts of this image symbolize?

The painting most probably comes from Byzantine Tradition as we can see the use of gold a well-known attritube of most of the Orthodox artist in expressing their views or faith.

The symbol ICXC in the middle of the painting with overline make certainty that this artwork belong to Eastern or Byzantine Tradition and there's no Muslim iconography here as it would be an obvious contradiction to their upheld Tradition.

  "In Eastern Christian tradition, the monogram ΙϹΧϹ (with Overline indicating scribal abbreviation) is used for Ἰησοῦς Χριστός in both Greek and Cyrillic tradition."
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christogram

The artwork depicted the five (5) characters who had the important role in the Drama of Man's Salvation.

Abba Father the source of Authority & Graces.
The Begotten Son Jesus the source of the Holy Eucharist
And the Holy Spirit in the form of the dove, the source of Sanctification the giver of Life.
Plus, I saw the Ark of the Covenant meaning Mary the chosen Woman from eternity is also depicted here and we will elaborate below as part of the hidden character here.
In addition, Lucifer is also depicted here below the Throne of God as wing angel in a circle form signifying resemblance to God's likeness in power.

Note : Both the foot of the Father and the Son was shown by the artist in the same color tone & sandals meaning both of them had set their foot on their creation.

  The painting title can be name as " The Abba Father Divine Plan of Salvation"

Further deciphering the image we can describe them as follows;

The Abba Father wears a white garment signifying clothe in Holiness or Light. His left hand contain the written Divine Plan for the Salvation of Mankind and the right hand raise in a familiar hand symbol of Jesus having the 2 fingers, others interpret this as 2,000 years, meaning only the Abba Father knows the hour. The Abba Father although He is the one seated on the Throne His halo is represented by a lot of triangle formation representing the Wisdom of the Holy Trinity.
Jesus the Begotten Son is clothe in gold representing purity and not clothe with the Light or Holiness like the Abba Father as Jesus will come in the form of man devoid of Majesty and Glory but will be born sinless or pure. Noticed the artist emphasis of the Abba Father and the Begotten Son had the same color tone or body essence meaning same substance or nature. Jesus halo represented the symbol of Cross signifying His Redemptive mission was already foreordained in Eternity before He came into this world.The "Way of the Cross"(Genesis 1:1).Noticed also the Hand of Jesus holding a white circle, a symbol that represents the Holy Eucharist that will be the source of Eternal Life in John Gospel Chapter 6 Bread of Life discourse.
The Holy Spirit was represented by a dove like when it came down to Jesus to dwell with Him in the Baptism in the river Jordan. The halo of the dove is represented with gold meaning His Holiness is the same nature with the Father and the Son depicted in their bodies but the Holy Spirit is white dove representing that She was clothe with the Holiness or Light same as the Abba Father. Since the white dove has no body, how can She manifest Her existence on earth? The mystery was answered by the blue & white colored circle and will interpret it below in the hidden character title.

Hidden Characters :

The Hidden Character and symbols here is the Ark of the Covenant expressed by the artist by putting the two wings cherub on both side. This is supported by Jesus hands on the white circle representing the manna or the Holy Eucharist in the New Testament. Mary role & character was hidden here in the form of the blue circle as we know Tradition called Mary the Lady in Blue and the white dove was inside the blue circle meaning Mary the Lady in Blue was indwelt by the Holy Spirit. St.Kolbe called this "quasi-incarnate" in comparison to Jesus which is known as the Incarnated Logos. The white circle that the hands of Jesus holds symbolizing He is the one offering the sacrifice but it is connected to the blue circle as the Mary is the Mother of the Eucharist the flesh or "body & blood" of Jesus comes from Mary."
Lucifer is included here, the artist depicted Lucifer below the Throne as wing angel in circle signifying Lucifer perfection of beauty among the Heavenly Angels and likeness of power to God. Lucifer was "anointed" by God to guard the Holy Mountain or the Throne of God. (Ezekiel 28:14-ff) described Lucifer perfection that made him feel that he is like God. But Lucifer only bear the Light of God or was "anointed" to guard the Throne of God. Lucifer is only a cherub but in Book of Ezekiel, Lucifer was able to surpass the power of Seraphim thru his anointing able to walk in the fiery stones. Seraphim is known as the fiery angels the burning ones that is much closer to God's Throne compare to Lucifer which is only a cherub.

NOTE: The artist colored the circled wing angel below the Throne brown denoting earthly color. Biblically, Lucifer after his fall was cast down to earthly realm. A color contrast with the color of wing cherub on left & right side is artist way of conveying the difference of Angelic glory.And size difference denotes wing cherub was glorified and Lucifer shrink in size denotes demotion.

In closing, the artist perfectly describes what is the "Divine Plan of God"existed in eternity represented by three concentric circles symbolizing the Holy Trinity inside the Third Heaven. We can see that the artist included the Ark of the Covenant here plus Lucifer being the bearer of God's Light or guardian of God's Throne in the Holy Mountain. The Five Characters (Abba Father, Jesus Christ, Holy Spirit the "another Advocate & Spirit of Truth, Mary the Theotokos and Lucifer which is created good and bestowed with perfect gifts & anointing)  are the main actors in the Drama of Man's Salvation.


What is the argument and Biblical basis that it is possible to know God from nature? What is the Biblical basis for the argument that it is possible for someone to learn limited (non-salvific) information about God without learning about him from the Bible or another believer, such as from nature?

Well you have two questions here and there are opposite answers for each.
Can you know about God without the Bible or other believer? Yes according to the Bible you can.

Romans 1:20

  For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Psalms 19:1-2

  1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
     the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
  2 Day after day they pour forth speech;
     night after night they reveal knowledge.

But then comes the title question. Is it possible to KNOW God from nature? The answer is no.   Just like you can learn some things about my intelligence by looking at the way I code programs, you could never KNOW me just by looking at my code. In fact you could get the wrong idea about me completely if you only look at the actual code and don't read the comments in it! You've got to come to where I am if you want to know me. That's just logic, but what does the Bible say about that? How would we 'come' to God?

John 14:6

  Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

So you can know about God without help from the bible, but I don't think you can say you could KNOW God without either the Bible, or others who know Him, because in order to KNOW God you have to have faith in Jesus, and while the heavens openly and obviously declare the glory of God, they don't obviously announce the person of Jesus Christ.  However, that doesn't mean that if no Bible or christian is available you can't ever know Him, God said in several places those who seek Him will find Him.  For example:

Deuteronomy 4:29

  But if from there you seek the LORD your God,
  you will find him if you look for him with all your heart
  and with all your soul.

But if there is scripture or other christians available and you don't consult them, how could you claim to be seeking God with all your heart and soul?


Binding of Satan -- for amillennialists Revelation 20:1-3 states

  "Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. 2 And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, 3 and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while."

1 Peter 5:8 states:

  "8 Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour."

Without bashing amillennialism, what is a typical amillennial response to this seeming contradiction? If Satan is bound outside of this earth during the millennium, which is now, why should we be watchful of him as Peter warns?

There are a number of points amillennialists disagree on: the nature of the millennium, who takes part in the 'first resurrection', what the 'first resurrection is, etc.

But the main point of disagreement is when the thousand years of Revelation 20 begin:

1. Millennium begins at the cross (c. 30 AD)

Perhaps the more well-known variation of amillennialism associates the binding of the dragon with the crucifixion (and/or resurrection) of Jesus. Appeal is made to passages like John 12.31 or John 16.11 in combination with Matthew 12.22-29. Within this framework, the binding of the dragon is a symbolic reference to the satan suffering 'judgment' and being 'bound up' through the cross. Hence, the thousand years began at that time (i.e. about 30 AD).

2. Millennium begins at the destruction of the temple (70 AD)

Some amillennialists believe the dragon was bound not when Jesus was crucified, but when the temple of Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD, and thus the millennium began at that time. This view is most common within a specifically preterist eschatology.

3. Millennium begins at the fall of Rome (4th-5th centuries AD)

And a third set of amillennialists see Revelation 19-20 as foretelling the collapse of the Roman Empire, whether by conversion (i.e. Constantine's reforms) or by conquest (barbarian invasion of Rome). Interpreting one (or both) of these as the triumph of Christianity over paganism, the dragon is believed to have been bound, and the millennium begun, around this time.

Reconciliation

There is no direct conflict between the amillennialism expressed in views 2 and 3 with the activity of the satan as described in 1 Peter 5.8. Because, in these two views, the millennium begins after 1 Peter 5.8 was written (believed to be c.62-64 AD), it may be understood as only applying to the time frame between the epistle's authorship and the start of the millennium. (A critical dating of 1 Peter's authorship, c.80-100 AD, is more problematic for view 2.)

This leaves view 1 unaccounted for, the view that says the millennium began when Jesus died.

But reconciliation is made between 1 Peter 5.8 and view 1 (and really all three views) on the basis of an alternate understanding of what Revelation 20 is actually describing. The point of debate often centers around when the dragon is bound or when the millennium begins, but some authors have instead framed Revelation 20.1-6 around the nature of the dragon's imprisonment.

In specific response to the use of 1 Peter 5.8 as an objection to amillennialism, Riddlebarger argues:

  The apostle John told us in Revelation 20 what this binding of Satan actually entails. Confined to the abyss, the devil is no longer free to deceive the nations until he is released before the end (20:3). This does not mean that the binding of Satan prevents all forms of satanic activity in this age.1

In his commentary on Revelation 20, G.K. Beale (who interprets the millennium as spanning 'from Christ's resurrection until his final parousia', i.e. view 1), also responds directly to the use of 1 Peter 5.8, saying:

  But the "binding" (δέω) of Satan in Mark 3:27 (= Matt. 12:29) does not restrict all his activities but highlights the fact that Jesus is sovereign over him and his demonic forces. Therefore, context, and not the metaphor by itself, must determine what degree of restriction is intended. That Satan is "cast out" (ἐκβάλλω) by Christ's death does not restrict Satan in every way. Rather, it keeps him from preventing "all people" throughout the earth being drawn to Jesus (John 12:31-32). [...] God's seal on Satan prevents him from harming the salvific security of the true church, though he can harm it physically.2

In other words, amillennialists see the dragon's imprisonment in Revelation 20 not as an absolute restriction of all of the satan's activity in the world, but a more specific restriction of the satan's ability. G.K. Beale continues by defining what he thinks this specific restriction is:

  But what kind of deceiving activities are to be restrained? The following context, 20:7-10, provides the nearest answer, especially since v 7 begins where v 3 leaves off (cf. "until the thousand years should be completed . . . it is necessary that he be loosed" and "when the thousand years are completed, he will be loosed"). In vv 7-10 the devil is released "to deceive the nations . . . in order to gather them together" to exterminate the community of God's people on earth. This will occur at the end of history immediately before Christ's final coming, when he will destroy the nations with fire.3

This is similarly argued by David Chilton (who followed a synthesis of views 1 and 2):

  For all these reasons, it is generally suggested by both postmillennial and amillennial authors that the binding of Satan, so that he should not deceive the nations any longer, refers to his inability to prevent the message of the Gospel from achieving success. And, as far as it goes, this interpretation certainly has Biblical warrant: Before the coming of Christ, Satan controlled the nations; but now his death-grip has been shattered by the Gospel, as the good news of the Kingdom has spread throughout the world. [...] That Satan has been bound does not mean that all his activity has ceased. The New Testament tells us specifically that the demons have been disarmed and bound (Col. 2:15; 2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 6) – yet they are still active. It is just that their activity is restricted. And, as the Gospel progresses throughout the world, their activity will become even more limited. Satan is unable to prevent the victory of Christ’s Kingdom. [...] the precise thrust of Revelation 20 seems to be dealing with something much more specific than a general binding and defeat of Satan. St. John tells us that the Dragon is bound with reference to his ability to deceive the nations – in particular, as we learn from verse 8, the Dragon’s power "to deceive the nations . . . to gather them together for the war." The stated goal of the Dragon’s deception is to entice the nations to join forces against Christ for the final, all-out war at the end of history. [...] The specific point of the binding of the Dragon, therefore, is to prevent him from inciting the eschatological "war to end all wars," the final battle – until God is ready.4

In other words, amillennialists identify a difference between the activity of the satan in 1 Peter 5.8, and the activity the dragon is prevented from doing in Revelation 20. In the former the activity the satan does is understood as a more personal type of persecution, while the latter is understood as the dragon being restricted from carrying out an overt attempt at a global annihilation of all of God's followers. Amillennialists believe that a restriction of the latter does not include a restriction of the former.

Footnotes

1 Kim Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism, p.242

2 G.K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, p.985-986

3 Ibid.

4 David Chilton, Days of Vengeance, p.199-201 (bold and italics original).