Does Luke 16:25 support Spiritism? Luke 16:25 But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received
  your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is
  comforted here and you are in agony.

Link to verse in BibleHub

Does it allow us to understand that Spiritism is correct? Your suffering in this life will define what will happen to your soul?

Edit

I'm just curious to understand if there is a relation with your current wealth/poor life and the life after death. This text, in my opinion, is in accordance with the Spiritism, roughly speaking, the way you live your current life will dictate what happens in the next one.

The believe in the existence of Spirit is accepted by many, theist and atheist alike. The Bible also has many verses related to spirits. In spite of all kinds of theories, like the one you mentioned, I will stick to Biblical teaching only.

According to New Testament, the destination/fate of the soul lies solely on the Faith of that person, not his deeds, of course, Faith should be incorporated with deeds. The rich or poor status of the person also does not define the progression of the Spirit as mentioned in the Fundamental Principles of Spiritism.

  John 3:16 (NIV) For God so loved the
  world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him
  shall not perish but have eternal life.

There is no concept of Progression or Rebirth of spirit in the Bible.

  Hebrews 9:27 (NIV) Just as people are destined to die once, and after
  that to face judgment

In the parablea of The Rich Man and Lazarus, there are things we should know.

Being rich does not make you a sinner. But worldly wealth will steal your heart away from God.

  Mark 4:19 (NIV) but the worries of this
  life, the deceitfulness of wealth and the desires for other things
  come in and choke the word, making it unfruitful.

Being poor does not make you a Saint either. Lazarus did not go to Heaven just because he was poor. The poor man Lazarus listened to the words of the prophets but the rich man did not.

  Luke 16:29 (NIV) “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’

Therefore, your suffering in this life will not define what will happen to your soul, but, your faith in God will decide.

 a whether this is a parable or real incident is not the scope of this answer


Was Luke an eye-witness to the crucifixion? Is there any reference that Luke was at the crucifixion of Christ?  Or if he had met Jesus face to face?  Or was his account of Jesus' life written by research or listening to reliable sources such as Paul?

There are two issues here. The first one is that Luke is not mentioned as an eyewitness to the crucifixion and, being a companion to Paul in the fifties, more than twenty years later, was unlikely to have been an eyewitness. The second issue is that Luke the physician is unlikely to have been the author of the gospel that now bears his name.

Eyewitness to the crucifixion

Mark's Gospel tells us that the women who knew Jesus watched from afar off, with no mention of Luke, or of the disciples

  Mark 15:40: There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome.

Matthew's Gospel (Matthew 27:55) agrees with Mark that only women watched from a distance. Luke's Gospel is more ambiguous, allowing that the little group might have included men, but with no mention of names (and certainly no mention of Luke):

  Luke 23:49: And all his acquaintance, and the women that followed him from Galilee, stood afar off, beholding these things.

Composition of Luke's Gospel

All the New Testament Gospels were written anonymously. The Gospel now known as Luke's Gospel was attributed to Luke during the second century, apparently on the basis that it appeared to have been written by a gentile, and the same author wrote Acts of the Apostles, which was thought to point to a close acquaintance of Paul as the author.

'Luke' opens the gospel by assuring Theophilus of the veracity of his account. Presumably if he had been present in Jerusalem, or if he had researched the facts about Jesus, or even received his gospel knowledge from Paul, he would have said so, but he does not. If he had learnt it from a reliable witness to the the mission of Jesus, he would also have said so, at the same time declaring this to be clear evidence of the gospel's reliability. Instead, he merely says that the gospel came to him through prior sources, the first of whom was [presumably] an eyewitness:

  Luke 1:2: Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

It is the almost unanimous consensus of critical scholars that Mark's Gospel was one of Luke's sources, with a strong but less overwhelming consensus that the hypothetical 'Q' document was another of the sources to which he refers in the prologue. John Dominic Crossan says in The Birth of Christianity, page 93, that he spent the 1960s in a monastery, poring over the gospels in parallel columns, word after word and unit after unit, day after day and year after year, studying the scholarly hypothesis and doing source-criticism. In the end he found it absolutely convincing.


Did Jesus baptize or not in St. John's account? John 3:22 (KJV)

  22 “After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.”

John 4:1-2 (KJV)

  1 “When therefore the LORD knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, 2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)”

In John's account in chapter 3 we have Jesus baptizing whereas not long afterward John explicitly mentions that Jesus did not baptize. Why is this?

It is obvious from the text of John 3:22 that Jesus was not the one actually performing the dipping, but his apostles.

The idea here is that the apostles were baptizing on his behalf.  Because they were baptizing in his name, it was, in essence, Jesus baptizing.

We, today, have the power to do the same thing:

Matthew 28:19 (NIV)

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


How did John the Baptist or Jesus fulfill Malachi 3:3? Malachi 3:1-3

Behold, I am going to send My messenger, and he will clear the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; and the messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming,” says the LORD of hosts.
But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears? For He is like a refiner’s fire and like fullers’ soap.
He will sit as a smelter and purifier of silver, and He will purify the sons of Levi and refine them like gold and silver, so that they may present to the LORD offerings in righteousness.

Which of the two: John or Jesus, fulfilled Malachi 3:3.
How was it fulfilled?
Why does Malachi say Levi present perfect plural "offerings" as a result of John or Jesus' ministry?

The difficulty arises in the fact that Jesus' supposedly put an end to the need for offerings and the verse appears to be speaking of Jewish sacrifices not the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.

Mark quotes this passage in the first two verses of his book and it is clear that the 'beginning of the gospel' is the ministry of John. Mark also quotes from Isaiah in confirmation of this.

Thus if the 'messenger of preparation' - spoken of by Malachi - is John the Baptist, then the 'Messenger of the Covenant' (which Malachi says is the Lord himself) is evidently Jesus - God manifest in flesh.

Then the events prophesied by Malachi must be subsequent, not just to the incarnation of the Christ, but subsequent to the ministry of the 'messenger of preparation' (the messenger who precedes the Lord's ministry).

This, therefore, places the events of purifying and offering after the ministry of John the Baptist. Ergo, the events take place during the ministry of Jesus Christ, the Messenger of the Covenant.

So the events must be the fulfillment of what the Levitical priesthood stood for - because, as the question makes clear, the coming of the Christ would end all need for simulated sacrifices on earth.

Therefore the 'offering in righteousness' made by the sons of Levi (the generation following the Levitical priesthood) must be the offerings made, in faith and in love, by those born from above, filled with the Holy Spirit, worshipping the Father in spirit and in truth.

This is evidently a prophecy of the New Testament, a prophecy of a new birth, a prophecy of all that is fulfilled in the sufferings and death of Christ which brings in a worshipping company, offering praises and prayers, through Jesus Christ unto God, the Father.


Is there any Biblical reference strictly speaking about God being timeless? I've heard a lot, mainly from apologists, the notion that God is Timeless (Little example). So, this is an assumption on the philosophical ground, but is there a theological ground for it? Any verse in the scriptures that talks about His relatioship with time, or we can assume that He is timeless just because He is the Creator of everything and He is Eternal?

While how much philosophy has influenced the church on this can be debated,  one only has to look to Scripture to see that God clearly operates outside time.

The term "outside time" may mean different things to people. To to clarify I'm saying that in order to be considered outside time one must display the ability to

Control time.
Independent of time, not bound by its linear restrictions.
Understand and perceive events in time, if not time itself, in a way that is,  again,  not restricted by the laws of time as they apply to us.

Creation

First,  we have the idea that God created the universe. As physics has advanced we have learned more and more how time is an integral part of our universe, tied together with how it operates. So when God created the universe it seems plain that he created time as well.  And if he has dominion over all creation,  then that would include time.  This may be the simplest and yet strongest argument.

Controlling Time

If that seems to be too much philosophical reasoning,  which may or may not be influenced,  then consider what scripture has to say.

We see in Joshua 10 that the sun and moon stopped. Now,  time still passed in some way, allowing the Israelites to continue the fight,  but this shows extreme control over creation.  Many speculate that the only way to do such a thing without causing a massive cataclysm to the entire solar system would be to actually stop time around the Israelites,  or to accelerate it so it seemed it stopped around then.

Either way,  there is control of time in the ability to stop,  slow,  accelerate time simply violate physics entirely without damage.

A similar event happens in 2 Kings 20 when God moves the shadow backwards as a sign to Hezekiah.

Independent of Time

The OP seems to accept God's eternal nature. To be eternal is to be independent of time. It has no effect on him as he never changes.
Psalm 90 has much to say including in verse 2:

  from everlasting to everlasting you are God.

Perceiving Events from Outside

We also see prophecy in scripture where God has clear knowledge of our future as if it was the past.

Isaiah 46:9-10

  I am God, and there is none like me,10 declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done,

Isaiah 48:5

  I declared them to you from of old, before they came to pass I announced them to you,

Psalm 139:16

  Your eyes saw my unformed substance;
  in your book were written, every one of them,
  the days that were formed for me,
  when as yet there was none of them.

Also it seems time does not pass for God the way out does for us.

2 Peter 3:8

  But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Conclusion

There is lots of internal evidence in scripture,  if you accept it on its own merit,  that suggests that God is independent, in control, and able to perceive all of time.


Did a pre-schism Roman Bishop say he is not special? I heard recently that one of the pre-schism Bishops of Rome went out of his way to say that the Bishop of Rome does not possess any special authority, power, etc over any other bishop and is merely the "first among equals". Is that true and, if so, can anyone find the quote and its attribution? Google is failing me.

Found it in this question:

What exactly did Pope Gregory the Great mean by “Universal Bishop?”

Pope St. Gregory the Great, 6th century, from his epistles.


Who witnessed the crucifixion? As, the question asks, can anyone aggregate for me and put a small list of who all witnessed the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, in the decreasing order of the person's importance (popularity). e.g. First the disciples and then other notable people who witnessed the event in that order. A list of roughly 25 or less number of people would suffice.
Also a related question, who exactly witnessed Jesus Christ saying these words at the time of his death, "Father forgive them?". (Please support the answer to this line with authentic references)

:)

Matthew 27:38-54, Mark 15:27-39, Luke 23:35-49, and John 19:23-34 describe the crucifixion and the people present and name some of them. These passages from the four canonical gospels, however, give different accounts of the number of people present and their names. Putting these accounts together, the following names can be found (or inferred):

Mary (Mariam), mother of Jesus.
Mary Magdalene
Joseph of Arimathea; probably a secret Judean disciple of The Messiah.
"the disciple whom Jesus loved", James; though his identity still a subject of considerable debate.
Nicodemus; probably also a secret Judean disciple
Salome
Mary of Clopas
Simon of Cyrene

Not named but inferred:

The centurion, (Longinus; the name is found in the pseudepigraphal Gospel of Nicodemus that was appended to the apocryphal Acts of Pilate).
Caiaphas, the Jewish high priest.
Annas, a high priest before whom Jesus is brought.

The rest are unnamed nor can be named: various kinds of crowds.

As for the forgiveness passage, its authenticity is disputed, as detailed in the NET notes.


Is it best not to mention a denomination or branch when talking to a person who belongs to a different one? I learn that it is best to avoid talking about politics with others, because people holding different political views can easily become hostile towards each other.

As an Atheist, I was wondering a similar question: when talking to people of a denomination or branch, is it generally better to avoid mentioning other churches of different denomination or branch?

I am asking about rule of thumb, and it is not uncommon to meet people of

Protestants and Catholics
Within Protestants,  Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, ...,
within Presbyterians, Methodists, or Baptists, there is also distinction between Mainline and Evangelical.

Unlike politics, Christians of different denominations very rarely are hostile to one another. The differences between denominations are not very significant in everyday life. Most Christians have close friends different denominations and many would be hard pressed to articulate the differences between their denomination and any others they might encounter. Even when they are known, the differences are rarely a cause for animosity and it is safe to talk about denominations.

There are a few parts of the world where the above is not true but those cases should be easily identified.


Is it permissible for priests who normally celebrates the Extraordinary Form of the Mass to concelebrate Mass? Is it permissible for priests who normally celebrates the Extraordinary Form of the Mass to concelebrate Mass when saying the Mass according to the Tridentine Rite?? What about at some special occasions, such as the blessing of an abbot?
It seems fare to say that vast majority of priests who celebrate Mass according to the Tridentine Rite do not concelebrate their Masses with other priests.
However, I would like to know, if in fact it is permitted under certain circumstances, either in our actual times or even historically (perhaps in some ancient variations that were employed in historical Latin Usages like the Sarum Rite)?
Has Rome ever allowed this particular practice in the Extraordinary Form?

Latin liturgical rites

In the traditional (i.e. before Vatican II) rite, a mass of priestly ordination would be concelebrated by the ordaining bishop and the newly ordained priest(s). Specifically, they would pray the canon of the mass together. This is also the only case I've encountered where the canon is spoken loudly.
(There may be other traditional concelebrations, but I haven't seen any. The consecration of a bishop would be a possible example, but I have no knowledge about that.)


Does God have the capacity to sin? Can God sin? To clarify,

this question is not asking for a "justification" of those times, described in the Bible, when God struck someone dead. Life is His to take.
the question is also not asking strictly whether Jesus had the capacity to sin. The answer should not hinge on whether Jesus was God (He was, assume this), or whether Jesus was one or two persons (He was one divine Person, assume this).

The question is asking if God can sin, with attention to, for example, how that might be reconciled with his omnipotence and benevolence. I expect that there are some theological constructs already in place to deal with this question or others like it. If there is some well-established theological difference between "can sin" and "has the power to sin" or "has the capacity to sin", then this should be clarified.

Can God (three Persons, one Being) sin?

God cannot sin, not because He lacks the free will to do so, but because it would be inconsistent with His character and His nature.

From http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/rock.html

  The word "omnipotent" is never used in the Bible, but has been
  inferred primarily by one of God's Hebrew titles, "Shadday," which is
  most often translated "almighty."1 However, the Bible never claims
  that God can do all things. In fact, the Bible makes a point that
  there are things that God cannot do. The Bible says that God cannot
  commit sin.2 God cannot lie.3 Therefore, biblical omnipotence does
  not mean that God can do all things. God cannot do anything that is
  contrary to His holy character. However, God can do anything that He
  determines to do. This is a true meaning of omnipotence - the
  ability to do anything that one sets out to do.

Technically, God could sin if His nature were not perfect - if He chose to, but because His nature is Holy, Perfect, Flawless, to sin would be contrary to His nature.  He would never "set out" to do it,even if it is conceivably within HIs power to do so.

A pastor (I can't remember which) once put it like this:  "If I were to say I can't eat rotten garbage, that doesn't mean that it would be physically impossible for me to do so.  I have the physical capability to pick it up, put it in my mouth, chew, and swallow.  However, I say I cannot do it because it is so repulsive to me.  In this same way, it is possible for God to be omnipotent, yet be unable to sin."


What is meant by keeping people blind and deaf so as not to get healed? What is meant by keeping people blind and deaf so as not to get healed? [see footnote regarding answers]

I understand this to be one of those scriptures that is meant to challenge our understanding, such as "drink my blood and eat my flesh"...yet I still can't see the purpose behind these words:

Isaiah 6:9,10

  “‘Be ever hearing, but never understanding;
      be ever seeing, but never perceiving.’ 10, Make the heart of this people calloused;
      make their ears dull
      and close their eyes.[a] Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
      hear with their ears,
      understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.”

Mark 4:10-13

  10 When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him
  about the parables. 11 He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God
  has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said
  in parables 12 so that,

  “‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,
      and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!’[a]”

  13 Then Jesus said to them, “Don’t you understand this parable? How
  then will you understand any parable?

What is meant by keeping people blind and deaf so as not to get healed?

edit:

I've reopened the bounty. The entire bible is encoded in parables, and Isaiah 6 eludes to what the purpose of encryption-through-symbolism is needed in the word. Jesus applies it, but does not explain it's full necessity, and why it must be that way.

So we ask again - what is the meaning of "Keeping people blind and deaf so as not to get healed?" a concept which contradicts the idea "I want to, be made clean...".

In spirit this concept contradicts the nature of God, who wants to heal and restore. Yet this says "Make it so that cannot happen". To a Christian, one would be confused the same as Jesus Jewish audience when he said "Drink my blood"...something that seemingly contradicted their law.

Hence we seek to explain the mystery and remove the supposed contradiction.

This mystery is so important to me I'd happily keep reopening the bounty, using up my points, until a conclusively accurate answer is given.

FOOTENOTE:

Of the answers given, three authors gave appropriate and correct answers from different angles, thus giving a very good understanding of the possible answer to this question.

@ShemSeger's answer was the first comprehensive one given, helping to understand the purpose behind the veiling of scriptures as it pertains to our human accountability. See the first paragraph see his heading "Understanding Parables". This was auto-awarded a bounty due to votes because I had sought more explanation on the issue. This answer, though, certainly gives a glimpse into what it means for our personal welfare.

@Trober's answer gives a very in-depth look at how this mystery pertains to God's justice and mercy, essentially giving everyone a chance to benefit equally at the right time from God's efforts to save and heal humankind. His answer addresses the answer from a prophetic aspect, citing very, very good examples in the scriptures to which this question pertains.

@Andrew's answer relies completely in the scriptures, and in it's own right very complete and elegant. It would have been assigned the "bounty" points, except many who are not trained in the scriptures might not see how these scriptures relate, although his outline is very authoritative.

Thus Trober's answer is given the bounty for the most harmonious and well explained answer. ShemSeger's answer elaborates greatly on our own responsibility, and its meaning to individuals. Andrew's answer solidifies these things with well chosen supporting scriptures.

The complementary nature of these answers reminds me of this scripture: 1 Corinthians 12:12-31

TL;DR: Milk before meat. Deep doctrine is dangerous to an unprepared soul.

  "I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not
  able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able." (see 1 Corinthians 3:1-3)

Christ taught in parables [as did Isaiah] so that the  spiritually immature and spiritually mature could both benefit from the message. He kept the deeper doctrines hidden in the parable from those who were spiritually "blind" and "deaf" to them until they matured spiritually enough that they could bear the deeper doctrines, and be healed by them.

Understanding Isaiah

You are right that this is one of those scriptures that is meant to challenge our understanding. Prophets like Isaiah veiled their teachings in language that preserved their teachings for those who would understand with their heart. Isaiah’s words are similar to the parables of Jesus in their manner of teaching. Spiritually speaking, Isaiah’s writings are meat, not milk (see 1 Corinthians 3:1–3; Hebrews 5:13–14; Isaiah 28:9). It requires spiritual maturity to understand them.

Prophecy of the Rejection of Spiritual Things

Isaiah 6 is a prophecy of the Jews rejecting Christ's teachings. The words the prophet Isaiah was commissioned to deliver were in part to bring the people to a full accountability for their choices, so that they would be left without excuse. The words are better understood:

  "And he said: Go and tell this people—Hear ye indeed, but [they]
  understood not; and see ye indeed, but [they] perceived not."

The people claimed to hear and see, but they did not understand the spirit of the message.

–– UPDATE – in response to OP edit:

  "Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and
  shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their
  ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed."
  (Isaiah 6:10)

Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary on Isaiah 6:

  The command to “make the heart of this people fat, … their ears
  heavy, and shut their eyes” is used to describe the process of making
  the people accountable. The command, of course, refers to “their
  spiritual sight, spiritual hearing, and spiritual feeling.” (Keil and
  Delitzsch, Commentary, 7:1:200).

  “There is a self-hardening in evil. … Sin from its very nature bears
  its own punishment. … An evil act in itself is the result of
  self-determination proceeding from a man’s own will.” (Keil and
  Delitzsch, Commentary, 7:1:201).

An individual cannot resist or reject the truth without eventually becoming spiritually hardened.

Isaiah’s indictment of the kingdom of Judah was cited again in the New Testament to show that the people of that time were no different. The inability of many to understand the parables is a fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy:

  "And his disciples asked him, saying, What might this parable be? And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand." (see Luke 8:9–10; also see Matthew 13:10–17).

The significance of many of the miracles was also misunderstood:

  "He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they
  should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and
  be converted, and I should heal them." (see John 12:37–41).

The testimony of the Messiah and His Sonship was understood, at least in part, by the disciples, but it was rejected by others:

  "21 ¶In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O
  Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from
  the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so,
  Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.

  22 All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth
  who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son,
  and he to whom the Son will reveal him.

  23 ¶And he turned him unto his disciples, and said privately, Blessed
  are the eyes which see the things that ye see:

  24 For I tell you, that many prophets and kings have desired to see
  those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those
  things which ye hear, and have not heard them." (see Luke 10:21–24).

In direct response to your comment:

"... it is mentioned that people should be deaf and blind until the cities crash down and the human population is decimated."

  "Then said I, Lord, how long? And he answered, Until the cities be
  wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man, and the land be
  utterly desolate," (Isaiah 6:11).

The prophet Isaiah asked the Lord how long some men would be hardened against truth (v. 11); the answer—until mortal man no longer exists.

––

Understanding Parables

These scriptures refer to spiritual understanding. Many of the people of Jesus’ time were spiritually immature and unprepared to receive the doctrines He taught (they have eyes, but they can't "see" the deeper meaning). Through parables He was able to teach the more spiritually mature and at the same time veil His teachings from those who were not prepared to understand or follow them. In that manner He kept many from being condemned for having a knowledge of principles they were unable to live.

  "That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear,
  and not understand [hear the message, but not understand the deeper spiritual context]; lest at any time they should be converted, and
  their sins should be forgiven them [so that they can can join the church later, without being held accountable for sinning while having a greater understanding of spiritual things]." (Mark 4:12; KJV)

Matthew's account gives us more clarity on his words:

  11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to
  know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not
  given...

  13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see
  not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand...

  15 For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of
  hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should
  see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand
  with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

  16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they
  hear. (Matthew 13:11,13,15-16)

In answer to your question, the people cannot be healed until their spiritual eyes are opened, and they can hear with their spiritual ears. Only then can they understand with their heart. Therefore it is prudent to keep them blind and deaf to the deeper "meatier" doctrines until they are spiritually mature enough to "stomach" them, Otherwise it could be detrimental to their spiritual development, much like giving meat instead of milk to a suckling babe would be detrimental to the physical health of the baby.

The Savior’s parables therefore included an implied invitation to seek further understanding of the truths they contained, and those who did so were rewarded with greater enlightenment.

A simple illustration showing why some people may fail to understand the truths taught in parables:

  “Two men may hear the same words; one of them listens in indolence and
  indifference, the other with active mind intent on learning all that
  the words can possibly convey; and, having heard, the diligent man
  goes straightway to do the things commended to him, while the careless
  one neglects and forgets. The one is wise, the other foolish; the one
  has heard to his eternal profit, the other to his everlasting
  condemnation” (Jesus the Christ, 3rd ed. [1916], 297).

The Establishment of Zion (Isaiah 1–12), (13-37).
Old Testament Student Manual Kings-Malachi, (1982), 137–50.Understanding Isaiah, (E-3)
Old Testament Student Manual Kings-Malachi, (1982), 131–35.Chapter 5: Matthew 13–15, Matthew 13:13. “They Seeing See Not”
New Testament Student Manual, 2014.


Genesis 3, original sin and mortality I'm currently doing some research for a Church project and next week we are covering creation. While looking at creation, I came across an interesting tidbit that I've never actually thought about before, and was wondering if someone could answer a question or two.

Here is the link to the particular passage:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:22-24&version=NIV

So, with that being read, first I'd like to know: were Adam and Eve mortal by creation? This text seems to say that man would become immortal by eating from the tree of life. Does that mean God created us in such a way that we were, by design, meant to die?

More importantly, how does this work alongside Romans 5:12?

Thanks for all answers :)

There's not much consensus on this. As with all answers on this site dealing with the subject of Creationism, there's a wide array of opinion on the subject.

Reading the text, in and of itself, without any external verses, interpretation, or debate over scientific validity of the claim certainly makes it appear as if Adam and Eve weren't created to be immortal, but if they'd eaten of the tree of life, they'd have gained immortality.

The apparent conflict with Romans 5:12 can likewise be taken in different ways.  It could be taken as an outright conflict (not my belief), or it could be that the word "death" is used as a metaphor.  "Death" is often taken to mean the judgment of God, or Hell in Scripture.

Based on the context of Romans 5, this seems the most likely explanation to me, as Paul is speaking of salvation, which has to do with eternal life, not physical life.

Comparative verse:

  Romans 6:23 (KJV) For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.


What is the eugenic "indication" in Casti Connubii? In Pope Pius XI's encyclical Casti Connubii, we read:

What is asserted in favor of the social and eugenic "indication" may and must be accepted, provided lawful and upright methods are employed within the proper limits

Within the context of paragraph 66, the "indication" (eugenicæ indicationis) is condemned when exploited "for the killing of the innocent", e.g., abortion (cf. paragraph 63).
But in the larger context,

What is eugenic "indication"? Presumably it is related to "hereditary transmission" of genetic traits (cf. paragraph 68).
What is a lawful employment of this eugenic "indication"?

Arthur Vermeersch, S.J., might have been that encyclical's ghostwriter. He describes the "eugenic indication" in his catechism on that encyclical, What is Marriage? p. 47:

What are some of the opinions that are current on the subject of feticide and abortion?[…] A eugenic reason [or "determining reason" to "allow feticide"] is to prevent the birth of children who would be monstrous or idiotic.

Also, pp. 51-2:

Is eugenic science then to be reprobated?[…] On March 21 of this year (1931) the Holy Office, with the approval of the Holy Father, declared that we must absolutely reject and hold as false and condemned by the Encyclical "Casti Connubii" of December 31, 1930, the so-called "eugenic" doctrine, as well "positive" eugenics as "negative," together with the means which it indicates for the improvement of the human race, by neglecting the laws of nature, of God, or of the Church, concerning marriage and the rights of individuals. [AAS 32 p. 118]


Which year did Jesus die? What is the most commonly held view Is there a commonly held year for Jesus' crucifixion? What is the basis? In particular I would like to see biblical-basis.

If not which Christian denominations teach a specific year for His crucifixion? and what is the basis.

The traditional date is Friday, April 3rd, 33 AD.  The most commonly held date by modern scholars is Friday, April 7th, 30 AD.

The factors in figuring this.

On or near Passover.
Under Pontius Pilate, who ruled 26–36 AD.
Jesus was questioned by the High Priest Caiaphas.  He was priest from 18 - 36 AD.
Generally considering a 3 1/2 year ministry, John the Baptist's ministry was recorded in Luke 3:1-3, indicating a date of either 26 AD or 29 AD, depending on when the beginning of his rule is reckoned by Luke.
Most conclude a Friday, although Wednesdays and Thursdays have been suggested. While it was the before the Sabbath, some hold this could have been the feast Sabbath, and not the weekly Sabbath.  The only Friday Sabbaths between 29 AD and 36 AD, according to mathematical calculations, would have been 30 AD and 33 AD.
Since Luke 3:23 says he was approximately 30 years old at the start of his ministry, the date of his birth is considered.  As he was born under Herod, dates of 8 BC to 2 BC are commonly suggested.  Some history indicates Herod died in 4 BC, but recent scholarship indicates Herod may have died in 1 BC.
The testimony of Peter in Acts 2:20, indicating Solar and Lunar Phenomenon, as well as the darkness recorded in the Gospels themselves, give indication.  Phlegon recorded such a darkness in the 4th year of the 202nd olympiad, and this corresponds to a lunar eclipse on the 33 AD date, above (see here for the NASA site listing the lunar eclipse that may have been the night of his death.
Jesus cried out in the "ninth hour", which Biblical scholars indicates is usually around 3pm.
Also of interest by some is the prophecy of Daniel's 70 weeks of Daniel 9:24.  Depending on the decree and calendar used, some figure a period of 490 years (of 360 days) to the day of Christ's triumphal entry, as predicted by the angel Gabriel, when using the date of the 33 AD crucifixion.  See Sir Robert Anderson's book "The Coming Prince" for his work.

Of these, one of the most sure is the date of Pilate's reign.  This limits the range of answers to a 10-year window.  Also, if one accepts the testimony of Phlegon in correspondence to the unexplained darkness at the same time as a lunar eclipse, you would point to a 33 AD date.

Isaac Newton figured a 29 AD baptism, and counted 5 passovers, and concluded 34 AD.  Many favored a 30 AD date after that, but popularity of the traditional 33 AD date is on the rise.

In my opinion, probably April 3rd, 33 AD at around 3:00pm local time fits the best.

Note:  This is another article that lists several points for determining the day of the crucifixion.


According to Catholicism, did the Temptation(s) of Jesus take place on the same day? We see the narratives of Temptation(s) of Christ prior to the commencement of His public life, in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. Even though the narratives lead one to believe that all the three temptations took place on the same day, the locations of the temptations viz. wilderness, mountain and City Jerusalem  would have us believe otherwise--unless of course, both Jesus and the Devil used super-human powers to travel faster than what was normally  possible. My question therefore is: Were the three temptations of Jesus spread out on three different days?  What do the teachings of Catholic Church tell us on such a prospective ?

According to Catholicism, did the Temptation(s) of Jesus take place on the same day?

The Church has not made any pronouncements in one way or another. Many believe that the Temptations of Christ in the Desert were during the course of his fasting in the wilderness.

However, St. Thomas Aquinas makes allusion that the Temptations of Christ were probably on the same day (last day of Christ's 40 day fast).

  It was becoming that Christ should wish to fast before His temptation. First, in order to give us an example. For since we are all in urgent need of strengthening ourselves against temptation, as stated above (Article 1), by fasting before being tempted, He teaches us the need of fasting in order to equip ourselves against temptation. Hence the Apostle (2 Corinthians 6:5-7) reckons "fastings" together with the "armor of justice."

  Secondly, in order to show that the devil assails with temptations even those who fast, as likewise those who are given to other good works. And so Christ's temptation took place after His fast, as also after His baptism. Hence since rather Chrysostom says (Hom. xiii super Matth.): "To instruct thee how great a good is fasting, and how it is a most powerful shield against the devil; and that after baptism thou shouldst give thyself up, not to luxury, but to fasting; for this cause Christ fasted, not as needing it Himself, but as teaching us."

  Thirdly, because after the fast, hunger followed, which made the devil dare to approach Him, as already stated (Article 1, Reply to Objection 1). Now, when "Our Lord was hungry," says Hilary (Super Matth. iii), "it was not because He was overcome by want of food, but because He abandoned His manhood to its nature. For the devil was to be conquered, not by God, but by the flesh." Wherefore Chrysostom too says: "He proceeded no farther than Moses and Elias, lest His assumption of our flesh might seem incredible." - Question 41. Christ's temptation (The Time)

Further reading can be done in this post: St. Thomas Aquinas On Christ’s Temptation

Thus it is possible that Jesus' Temptation took place on the last day of his 40 day fast. For do we not see that immediately after the Temptation of Christ, He was consoled by the good angels. The temptation must have been on the last day of the temptation:

  Then the Devil left Him, and behold, angels came and began to minister to Him. (Matthew 4:11)

Ministered to by angels

  At this, Satan departs and Jesus is tended by angels. While both Mark and Matthew mention the angels, Luke does not, and Matthew seems once again here to be making parallels with Elijah, who was fed by ravens. The word ministered or served is often interpreted as the angels feeding Jesus, and traditionally artists have depicted the scene as Jesus being presented with a feast, a detailed description of it even appearing in Paradise Regained. This ending to the temptation narrative may be a common literary device of using a feast scene to emphasize a happy ending, or it may be proof that Jesus never lost his faith in God during the temptations. - Ministered to by angels (Wikipedia)

A traditional Catholic understanding is that the Temptation of Christ was a literal and physical event.

As a Side note:

  The Mount of Temptation is said to be the hill in the Judean Desert where Jesus was tempted by the devil (Matthew 4:8). The exact location is unknown and impossible to determine. It is generally identified with Mount Quarantania, Arabic name: Jabal al-Qarantal, a mountain approximately 366 metres (1,201 ft) high, towering from the northwest over the town of Jericho in the West Bank. According to the public domain Catholic Encyclopedia (1907-1914), Quarantania is "a limestone peak on the road from Jerusalem to Jericho".

The Mount of Temptation 1910


What was the impetus for restoring the consecration of virgins for women living in the world in the 20th Century? The United States Association of Consecrated Virgins says the following about their sacramental:

The Consecration of a Virgin is one of the oldest sacramentals in the Church, and one of the fruits of Vatican II was the restoration of this profound blessing on virgins living in the world. The promulgation of this restored Rite for women living in the world was on 31 May 1970.

What was the impetus for restoring the Consecration of a Virgin for women living in the world? As it says, this is an old practice, but seems to have fallen out of favor after a time, so I'm curious as to why it came back.

Ultimately, the impetus for allowing women living in the world to be consecrated virgins was ecumenism and antiquarianism, which influenced almost all of Concilium's liturgical changes after Vatican II.
Pope Pius XII describes antiquarianism as (Mediator Dei):

[…] the restoration of all the ancient rites and ceremonies indiscriminately. The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity. The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world.[Mt. 28:20] They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of man.

Denying public vows of virginity to women living in the world
Condemnations
Innocent II "condemned as 'pernicious and detestable' [perniciosam et detestabilem] the custom of women wishing to be thought of as nuns, who lived in their own private dwellings rather than in monasteries."; Second Lateran Council (1139) can. 26 (Stegman 2019 p. 90):

We decree that the pernicious and detestable custom which has spread among some women who, although they live neither according to the rule of blessed Benedict, nor Basil nor Augustine, yet wish to be thought of by everyone as nuns, is to be abolished. For when, living according to the rule in monasteries, they ought to be in church or in the refectory or dormitory in common, they build for themselves their own retreats and private dwelling-places where, under the guise of hospitality, indiscriminately and without any shame they receive guests and secular persons contrary to the sacred canons and good morals. Because everyone who does evil hates the light, these women think that, hidden in the tabernacle of the just, they can conceal themselves from the eyes of the Judge who sees everything; so we prohibit in every way this unrighteous, hateful and disgraceful conduct and forbid it to continue under pain of anathema.

This is similar to reason #4 below.
1927 Holy Office decision
Reflecting "the same response that had been given by the Sacred Congregation in 1597 to the Patriarch of Venice" (Stegman 2019 p. 144), the Holy See in 1927 forbade public vows of virginity apart from entering a religious institute (AAS 19 p. 138):
To the dubium:

An expediat concedere facultatem dandi benedictionem et consecrationem Virginum mulieribus in saeculo viventibusWhether it is expedient [for the pope] to give [bishops] the faculty to bless and consecrate virgins living in the world

the Holy See responded:

Negative et nihil innovetur.Negative and no changes.

Also, "nonnulli locorum Antistites petiissent facultatem [several local bishops requested the faculty]."
Several reasons for the 1927 denial were opined by contemporary theologians, as quoted in "Explanations for the 1927 Denial" (PDF pp. 129-33) of Stegman 2019:

It puts "women in a new sacred state in the Church […] regulated directly by diocesan bishops, and not through the protection of the monastery."
It "could be likened merely to a private and simple vow, rather than being on par with a solemn vow that would invalidate a subsequent marriage."
"These virgins must wear special clothes, and especially to continuously wear the veil of consecration; but would the people of our time patiently put up with this when in the midst of society virgins are observed so dressed?"
It "would draw women away from religious life to a life that would be 'far from providing all the means of perfection that religious find in their vows of poverty and obedience, in their enclosure,
in their life in common, in their constitutions and the paternal vigilance of their superiors.'"

Pope Pius XII
Pope Pius XII's 1950 apostolic constitution on nuns Sponsa Christi, art. 3 §3:

§ 3. Solemnes antiquae formulae consecrationis Virginum, quæ in Pontificali Romano habentur, Monialibus reservantur.The ancient formula of the consecration of virgins in the Roman Pontifical is reserved to nuns [of solemn vows].

Consecration of virgins for women living in the world
Before Vatican II, the ceremony for consecrating a virgin,

De Benedictione et Consecratione Virginum(The Liturgy of the Consecration of Virgins according to the Roman Pontifical),

was reserved to women in religious orders.
Vatican II's constitution on the liturgy
Sacrosanctum Concilium:

The rite for the consecration of virgins at present found in the Roman Pontifical is to be revised.

1970 revised rite
Concilium, the group that created the Novus Ordo Mass, Working Group 20b (Cœtus 20bis) implemented this revision. "Not until the sixth and last schema do Consilium archives reveal that the coetus considered the notion of consecrating virgins living in the world"; they also changed the eligibility requirements of a purpose of serving virginity (propositum servandae virginitatis) and carnal integrity (caro integritate) to a "requirement of chastity" (Stegman 2019 p. 121).
Stegman 2019 p. 125:

On May 31, 1970, the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, under the authority of Pope Paul VI, decreed the promulgation of the new rite, which provided for the consecration of nuns as well as women living in the world.54 The new rite was to be effective January 6, 1971. “Thus the consecration became accessible no longer to only a few monastic orders (Carthusians and Benedictines) but also to all nuns with solemn vows and to women virgins living in the world.”55

This is in-line with the Vatican II changes that minimize the differences between the laity and religious (cf. "What is the history of the term “state of perfection” before, during, and after Vatican II?").
The 1983 Code (Can. 604) instated the "order of virgins" according to the 1970 liturgical rite, thus tacitly permitting consecrating virgins living in the world.
In the "spirit of Vatican II" and its love for novelty, the 2018 instruction Ecclesiae Sponsæ Imago on consecrated virgins doesn't even require perfect continence as a prerequisite:

Thus to have kept her body in perfect continence or to have practised the virtue of chastity in an exemplary way, while of great importance with regard to the discernment, are not essential prerequisites in the absence of which admittance to consecration is not possible.

cf. Canonist Ed Peter's commentary
Resources
Public vows of virginity were permitted in very early church history, but since at least 1597, private vows only have been encouraged for women living in the world.
Virginity is a vocation, so perhaps the Church wanted to give more official support to it, considering the drastic decline in female religious life after Vatican II (or perhaps permitting it to women living in the world contributed to the collapse of post-Vatican II female religious life; cf. reason #4 above).*
cf. The Mystery of Love for the Single by Fr. Unger, O.F.M. Cap. (1958) ch. 5 and this informative blog by a consecrated virgin.
*appendix of Liturgical Time Bombs in Vatican II by Michael Davies:"• Sisters. 180,000 sisters were the backbone of the Catholic education and health systems in 1965. In 2002, there were 75,000 sisters, with an average age of 68. By 2020, the number of sisters will drop to 40,000—and of these, only 21,000 will be aged 70 or under. In 1965, 104,000 sisters were teaching, while in 2002 there were only 8,200 teachers."


The Mark 16:15 Command as Practiced by the Apostles Mar 16:15  And he said to them, "Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation.

The Apostles were told to "Go into all the world", yet the Bible records Peter and John going to Samaria once (Acts 8), and Peter going to Caesaria once, and only after being convinced by a vision (Acts 10).  All other times, the apostles are recorded as being in Israel/Judea (Acts 9:26-27, Acts 11:1, Acts 15, Acts 16:4). When explicitly told to "go into all the world", why did the apostles instead, stay home?  Or how did the Apostles obey the command to "Go" by remaining in Israel?

In answering this question, please do not cite "tradition".  Instead, please rely on the Bible which is "breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness".

This is what we can ascertain from histories, letters and other documents:

JUDAS - Committed suicide a few hours before the death of Jesus

JAMES (son of Zebbadee) - Killed in AD44 by Herod Agrippa (Acts 12:1-2)

SIMON ZEOLTES - May have preached from Egypt to Libya but this information is only available through tradition

PETER - There is not much certainty in what happened to Peter. Much of what is "known" comes from church tradition. We do know that he escaped from prison in Judea (Acts 12:17), and went to Antioch where he was confronted by Paul (Gal 2:11). After that, he may have gone to Corinth (1 Cor 1:12). After that, second Century writers such as Irenaeus of Lyons and Clement of Alexandria say Peter went to Rome where he was crucified (in AD64, according to church tradition)

ANDREW (brother of Peter) - Eusebius quotes Origen (Church History 3.1) that Andrew taught in Scythia (Southern Russia and the "Stan" states into northern Iran). Nestor says Andrew preached into Kiev (Ukraine). Hippolytus says Andrew also preached in Thrace (modern day Bulgaria, eastern Greece) and founded the church in Byzantium. Andrew is the patron saint to Ukraine, Romania, and Russia.

MATTHEW - Irenaeus and Clement both record that he preached in Judea "and then went to other countries" but no mention of what specific other countries.

THOMAS - Eusebius states Thomas traveled to Parthia (northeastern Iran). Fourth century writings say Thomas sailed to India and spread Christianity there until his death.

Of the others, no definitive information is available.


Remit of Defender of the Bond in Catholic declaration of nullity investigations Is the main function, of Defender of the Bond (DOB), to offer "advice" to the tribunal Judge - or to (literally) defend the matrimonial bond?

Any answer presented should provide an explicit consideration of the following scenario.

In a case where the petitioner presents very weak grounds for advocating an annulment - can the DOB be asked (by the tribunal) to advise the Judges on how any evidence (affirming the annulment) may best be used? Is it his obligation, or right to do so?

I am not a canon lawyer, and Stack Exchange should not be relied upon for legal advice, but the canon lawyer Edward Peters does have something to say on this.

Canon 1432 of the Johanno-Pauline Code states “A defender of the bond is to be appointed in a diocese for cases concerning the nullity of sacred ordination or the nullity or dissolution of a marriage; the defender of the bond is bound by office to propose and explain everything which reasonably can be brought forth against nullity or dissolution.” There is no warrant here — or anywhere else in the 1983 Code — for Defenders of the Bond to make arguments for nullity.
Dignitas connubii  56 § 3 itself states “In every grade of trial, the defender is bound by the obligation to propose any kind of proofs, responses and exceptions that, without prejudice to the truth of the matter, contribute to the protection of the bond (cf. can. 1432)” and § 5 thereof drives home that “The defender can never act in favor of the nullity of marriage; if in a special case he has nothing that can be reasonably proposed or argued in favor of the bond, the defender can remit himself to the justice of the court.” Again, plainly, there is no canonical authorization for Defenders of the Bond to make arguments for nullity, and indeed, there is an express prohibition against such conduct.

Thus it would appear that there is no way for the Defender of the Bond licitly to do anything which might enhance the progress of the application for nullity.
It appears that some are interpreting an address by Pope Francis as an endorsement of the Defender of the Bond acting as a general counsel/adviser/Friend of the Tribunal, when he said

La sua presenza e il compimento fedele del suo compito non condiziona il giudice, bensì consente e favorisce l’imparzialità del suo giudizio, essendogli posti dinanzi gli argomenti a favore e contrari alla dichiarazione di nullità del matrimonio.

The official English translation of this says of the Defender of the Bond that

his presence and the faithful fulfilment of his task does not condition the judge, but rather allows and promotes the impartiality of his judgement by setting before him the arguments for and against annulment.

but it is doubtful that this is (a) a correct translation; (b) consonant with Canon Law. A reading which is consonant with Canon Law would be that the Defender sets forth the counter-argument to that of the applicant, thus ensuring that the judge has before him "the arguments for and against annulment." Pope Francis is not a canon lawyer, and his pronouncements and speeches have to be read and interpreted in the light of what has been formally promulgated by the Magisterium. Dignitas connubii 56 §5 specifically prohibits the Defender acting in favour of nullity.
I suppose that it is possible that a Defender of the Bond, having presented the argument against nullity, may be asked by the Tribunal to swap roles and stand as an adviser, as he is likely to be an expert in matters of nullity and relevant law and precedent. But in order to counter any perceived conflict of interest, if this is really necessary then good practice would surely be that this change of role should be made clear in the proceedings. Personally I feel that any dual role in proceedings is not good practice and the applicant should have their own expert [perhaps even appointed on their behalf by the Tribunal] to advise the judge on their application.
Addressing the question Is it his obligation or right to do so?, my answer is that not only does he not have an obligation to explain how best to interpret evidence for nullity, he actually has an obligation not to do that.


Why did the Jews comment that Jesus was not yet fifty years of age? We see at John 8 , the long debate that Jesus has with the Pharisees . We read  at verse 57 the question which the Pharisees pose to him:

Then the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?

One fails to understand as to why the Jews took Jesus as nearly fifty years  of age. Is it that he really appeared to be of around 50 years of age; or is it that age 50 was considered the standard age for calculation of wisdom, knowledge and maturity .  What does the Catholic Church say about the expression “not yet fifty” as used by the Jews against Jesus?

Why did the Jews comment that Jesus was not yet fifty years of age?

This is a very obscure subject to research accurately using Catholic sources. There is certainly no definitive statements on the subject whatsoever and as such Catholic interpretation on the subject matter is open to various points of view even within the Church.

That said let me do my best, which is a far cry from perfect or even well done, but here it is!

I can remember reading about this very subject some 25 years ago. I can not recall the exact texts or Catholic author, but the gist of what the Jews were getting at was the Our Lord has not yet attained the age of obtaining wisdom for he was still a young man. Being unable to find the exact references desired, I will do my best to explain it.

St. Ireaneus tries to explain what the texts means in his Adversus Haereses, book II, chapter 22, but admittingly it is somewhat confusing. “Being thirty years old when He came to be baptized, and then possessing the full age of a Master, He came to Jerusalem, so that He might be properly acknowledged by all as a Master.”

  Part of the process of recapitulation is for Christ to go through every stage of human life, from infancy to old age, and simply by living it, sanctify it with his divinity. Although it is sometimes claimed that Irenaeus believed Christ did not die until he was older than is conventionally portrayed, the bishop of Lyon simply pointed out that because Jesus turned the permissible age for becoming a rabbi (30 years old and above), he recapitulated and sanctified the period between 30 and 50 years old, as per the Jewish custom of periodization on life, and so touches the beginning of old age when one becomes 50 years old.

  In the passage of Adversus Haereses under consideration, Irenaeus is clear that after receiving baptism at the age of thirty, citing Luke 3:23, Gnostics then falsely assert that "He [Jesus] preached only one year reckoning from His baptism," and also, "On completing His thirtieth year He [Jesus] suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced age." Irenaeus argues against the Gnostics by using scripture to add several years after his baptism by referencing 3 distinctly separate visits to Jerusalem. The first is when Jesus makes wine out of water, he goes up to the Paschal feast-day, after which he withdraws and is found in Samaria. The second is when Jesus goes up to Jerusalem for Passover and cures the paralytic, after which he withdraws over the sea of Tiberias. The third mention is when he travels to Jerusalem, eats the Passover, and suffers on the following day.

  Irenaeus quotes scripture, which we reference as John 8:57, to suggest that Jesus ministers while in his 40s. In this passage, Jesus' opponents want to argue that Jesus has not seen Abraham, because Jesus is too young. Jesus' opponents argue that Jesus is not yet 50 years old. Irenaeus argues that if Jesus was in his thirties, his opponents would've argued that He's not yet 40 years, since that would make Him even younger. Irenaeus' argument is that they would not weaken their own argument by adding years to Jesus' age. Irenaeus also writes that "The Elders witness to this, who in Asia conferred with John the Lord's disciple, to the effect that John had delivered these things unto them: for he abode with them until the times of Trajan. And some of them saw not only John, but others also of the Apostles, and had this same account from them, and witness to the aforesaid relation."

  In Demonstration (74) Irenaeus notes "For Pontius Pilate was governor of Judæa, and he had at that time resentful enmity against Herod the king of the Jews. But then, when Christ was brought to him bound, Pilate sent Him to Herod, giving command to enquire of him, that he might know of a certainty what he should desire concerning Him; making Christ a convenient occasion of reconciliation with the king." Pilate was the prefect of the Roman province of Judaea from AD 26–36. He served under Emperor Tiberius Claudius Nero. Herod Antipas was tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, a client state of the Roman Empire. He ruled from 4 BC to 39 AD. In refuting Gnostic claims that Jesus preached for only one year after his baptism, Irenaeus used the "recapitulation" approach to demonstrate that by living beyond the age of thirty Christ sanctified even old age. - Irenaeus (Wikipedia)

They were certainly not discussing his age with any precision accordingly. They simply gave good measure. Jesus was still a young man. He could not claim even to be one of the elders. How then could He possibly have seen Abraham? Notice that the Jews do not repeat Jesus exactly. He speaks of Abraham seeing His day, they of His seeing Abraham.

But the phrase “fifty years” was the period of full manhood in the ancient Hebrew way of thinking (Numbers 4:3; Numbers 4:39; Numbers 8:24). This could expressed in such numbers as 50 years old, and there is no care to be more exact in comparison with the two thousand years which had passed since the close of Abraham’s earthly life. The thought of those present could be thus seen as: “Thou art still a young man, and hast thou seen Abraham who died twenty centuries ago?”

We can see that in Numbers 8:25 the Scriptures speak of the retirement of the Levites and as such are honoured for their past service.

  Retirement for Levites

  23And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: 24This is the law of the Levites: From twenty-five years old and upwards, they shall go in to minister in the tabernacle of the covenant. 25And when they shall have accomplished the fiftieth year of their age, they shall cease to serve: 26And they shall be the ministers of their brethren in the tabernacle of the covenant, to keep the things that are committed to their care, but not to do the works. Thus shalt thou order the Levites touching their charge.

Jewish tradition suggests that at the age of 50, one would be considered to be old, wise and an elder.

  At forty, one achieves (bina) understanding, at fifty, one is prepared to give (aitzah) wise counsel, at sixty, one is given the deference of seniority (zikna), at seventy, one is considered a sage (sayva).

  And what of 50 and beyond? What is aitzah, zikna and sayva? It means becoming an elder who earns eternity by teaching, by mentoring, by leading. - THE WISDOM OF JEWISH ADULTHOOD

Now for the Gematria of Nun.

  Gematria of Nun

  According to Jewish gematria, Nun represents the number 50 - a number representing freedom and fullness of life.

  50 days from the Exodus to the giving of the Torah
  (50 days for the count of the Omer)
  50 years for a Jubilee Year (yovel)
  50 references to Exodus in the Torah
  50 years of age before one has wisdom

This last point is where I am actually going. (Although the actual source evades me at the moment, I will try to find the reference desired, but it will time quite some time.) What the Jews were possibly getting at is that Our Lord was not truly considered an elder, for he was too young to have obtained true wisdom.

  ELDER (Heb. זָקֵן, zaken). In Israel, as among all other ancient peoples, the elder is not only a person of advanced age, but also a man of distinct social grade (cf. šībum in Akkadian, senator in Latin, geron in Greek, and sheikh in Arabic). The elders were the consulting body of the city, the nation, or the king respectively, and as such were considered "the wise" (cf. Ezek. 7:26 with Jer. 18:18). As a social institution, various types of elders are named: elders of a people (Israel, Judah, Moab, and Midian, Num. 22:4, 7; Egypt, Gen. 50:7); elders of an area (Gilead, Judg. 11:5–11); elders of a tribe (Deut. 31:28); elders of the Diaspora (Jer. 29:1); elders of the priests (II Kings 19:2; Jer. 19:1); elders of the city (passim); and elders of the house (i.e., palace, Gen. 50:7; II Sam. 12:17). The most prominent are the elders of the people or the country and the elders of the city. - Jewish Virtual Library


How many Gods are in Christianity? How many Gods are in John 1-2 "1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning." ?

There's only one God, his name is Yahweh, His son Jesus Christ and The Holy Spirit. One God in three persons. In one instance in John 14:9 Jesus says to one of the desciples, who asked of him to show them The Father: "If you see me, you've seen my Father" - meaning, they are one. Obviously, Jesus is The Son of God, but also one with The Father. A triune God if you will.


Why was Jesus offered vinegar and gall on the cross, and why did he refuse it? I have often wondered why Jesus was given vinegar and gull to drink? What would be the use of drinking it?

Also, was this a common thing to offer people hanging on a cross, or was this specific to Jesus?

  Mat 27:34  they gave to him to drink vinegar mingled with gall; and having tasted it , he would not drink.

It was some sort of potion designed to dull the senses and lessen the suffering of those being executed.

Biblehub contains several commentaries on this verse. One from Ellicott’s commentary reads in part:

  It was clearly something at once nauseous and narcotic, given by the merciful to dull the pain of execution, and mixed with the sour wine of the country and with myrrh to make it drinkable. It may have been hemlock, or even poppy-juice, but there are no materials for deciding. It is probable that the offer came from the more pitiful of the women mentioned by St. Luke (Luke 23:27) as following our Lord and lamenting. Such acts were among the received “works of mercy” of the time and place. The “tasting” implied a recognition of the kindly purpose of the act, but a recognition only. In the refusal to do more than taste we trace the resolute purpose to drink the cup which His Father had given Him to the last drop, and not to dull either the sense of suffering nor the clearness of His communion with His Father with the slumberous potion. The same draught was, we may believe, offered to the two criminals who were crucified with Him.


What is the biblical argument against Papal Succession? Possible Duplicate:
  What are the biblical arguments against the papacy and papal succession?

The Roman Catholic Church teaches the doctrine of Papal Succession, that is, that starting from Peter, there has been a line of "Popes" to lead the church.  This question addresses the argument for papal succession.

Neither the Orthodox Church nor Protestant churches in general affirm this doctrine.  What, then, is the biblical argument against papal succession?

There is no biblical argument against Papal succession.
The authority of Peter to govern the Church is based on the words of Christ in Matthew 16:18

You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. [NIV]

Other verses point to Christ's headship and the common work of all the apostles, as in 1 Corinthians 3:11, Ephesians 2:20, 1 Peter 2:4–6, Rev 21:14 [all NIV]:

For no-one can lay any foundation other the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.
...built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.
As you come to him, the living Stone — rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him — you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For in Scripture it says, "See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame."
The walls of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

These all point to the basis of the Church's faith being faith in Christ, and the contribution of all the apostles.
Nevertheless, the dominical words which set Peter up as the rock on which the earthly church stands, and who has the power and authority to bind and loose on earth what is bound and loosed in heaven, remain.
The Church Fathers, those Christians closest to the apostles in time, culture, and theological background, clearly understood that Jesus promised to build the Church on Peter, as shown by their writings[1]:

[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19] ... What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys. (Tertullian, Modesty 21:9–10, AD220)
Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? ‘Oh you of little faith,’ he says, ‘why do you doubt?’ [Matt. 14:31]. (Origen, Homilies on Exodus 5:4, AD248)
There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and thata one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering. (Cyprian of Carthage, Letters 43[40]:5, AD253)
You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. (Optatus, The Schism of the Donatists 2:2, AD367)
Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome], said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’. (Council of Ephesus, Acts of the Council, session 3, AD431)
Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod, together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, has stripped him [Dioscorus] of the episcopate. (Council of Chalcedon, Acts of the Council, session 3, AD451).

The last two quotes, from pre-Schism Ecumenical Councils, are significant. The New Testament canon was fixed between AD367 and 405[2], so the Councils in 431 and 451 would have been particularly aware of what was biblical and what was not.
Chalcedon calls Leo the Great "most holy and blessed, archbishop of the great and elder Rome," and lists no other members of the Council in that snippet; this puts the Pope in a position of authority. Ephesus arguably went further, agreeing that "Peter, head of the apostles, even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors."
Thus the early Church prior to the Great Schism agrees that Peter's authority subsists in his successors in Rome.
None of this denies the trouble which led to the Great Schism and the Reformation; it seeks to answer the question as stated, "What is the biblical argument against Papal Succession?" with "There is none."

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/origins-of-peter-as-pope
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon


What is the meaning of 1 Thessalonians 5:22? Inspired by an answer to one of my other questions, what is the proper meaning of 1 Thessalonians 5:22?

KJV

Abstain from all appearance of evil.

NIV:

reject every kind of evil.

NKJV

Abstain from every form of evil.

I am most familiar with the first translation, as was the poster of the answer that inspired this question.  But is that an accurate translation?

Regarding "appearance", Strong's Concordance has this defined as:

  that which is seen, form

So, we need to keep away from every [blank] of evil. I think both appearance and form are appropriate here. But I think that we need to take "form" as not just "type" (as in "every type of evil") but also as "formation" ("every formation seen of evil").

Even the English definition of "form" seems to back this up a bit:

From Dictionary.com

  1.
  external appearance of a clearly defined area, as distinguished from color or material; configuration: a triangular form.

  2.
  the shape of a thing or person.

There's a sense of a physical formation, something seen.

However, taking this in context we can see that "appearance" is a good word choice as well. If we change "appearance" or "form" to "sighting" (strongly indicating the physical aspect of sight), then it still makes sense to use other translations:

"Flee from every sighting of evil."

I think this would be just as valid translation. It's not just that you want to avoid the appearance within yourself, but also the appearance anywhere in the world.

I suspect that's why other (more modern) translations have avoided "appearance of" in favor of "type" or "form", since the idea is that we want to avoid the external evil that we find, not that we want to avoid "appearing" evil to others.

Ultimately, this verse is about what we see, not what others see.  It's a command to us to avoid things that we see that are evil -- avoid things that in our sight are evil.

  Edit

  My initial answer was answering the question, "Is this a good translation".  However, I see that the title is "What does this mean"?  Those are two very distinct questions.  So, here I'll answer the other question, "What does this mean?"

It can often be difficult to understand verses that are not in context so that if you take them out of context, they tend to lose their original intention.  I think it's important to look at the entire verse, in context, to get a full picture of what it's trying to say here:

1 Thess 5:19-22 (NIV)

  19 Do not quench the Spirit. 20 Do not treat prophecies with contempt 21 but test them all; hold on to what is good, 22 reject every kind of evil.

Furthermore, I encourage you to read the entire chapter of 1 Thessalonias 5 to get even a better picture.

What Paul is trying to say in this letter is to hold fast to good and reject evil--don't be like those around us.

1 Thess 5:6 (NIV)

  So then, let us not be like others, who are asleep, but let us be awake and sober.

The idea that permeates 1 Thessalonians is to stay strong in the Lord, to not turn aside towards evil ways.

In the context of this book, we can see more clearly that 1 Thess 5:22 is saying we should avoid evil in all its forms.  Just before that it says we should cling to that which is good.

That's the meaning of this verse: turn away from evil; cling to what is good.


What's the deal with numbers? The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that superstition is not supposed to be practiced and it is a violation of the 1st Commandment to honor God about all else.

However, there's always something going on like a 9 day novena or a 40 day fast or a request to return to a particular grotto on the 11th of each month. Then there's other significant numbers like 3 and 7 and 12 which are supposed to mean something and spooky numbers like 6 and 666.

So, where is the line between superstition and awe at the way God orders things mightily?

Numbers as language

Ordinarily, what a number refers to is more important than the number itself.  153 fish is a lot of fish.  2 small copper coins is a tiny amount of money.  14 years is  a certain period of time.  But to quote Bill James, sometimes numbers "have acquired the powers of language."  When that happens, the numbers themselves begin to have meaning independent of what is being counted.1

God began using numbers literally from the beginning to communicate to humanity—our week is a continual reminder of Who ordered the universe and how.2  The number 12 carries particular significance since it was the number of Israelite tribes.  Moses went so far as to separate out Joseph's inheritance into two half-tribes so that the number of territories was kept at twelve3.  The early church made replacing Judas a top priority in order to bring the number of apostles back to twelve.

Sometime during and after the Exile, a new genre of Jewish writing appeared that is labeled "apocalyptic".  As a genre, it has close links to dream interpretation, such as we see with Joseph in Genesis 37, 40, and 41.  Notice that numbers are of critical significance in each of the dreams and have a significance beyond simply counting things up.  The second half of Daniel, a textbook case of the apocalyptic genre, extends the dream interpretation structure to reveal God's purpose, not just for one person, but for all of humanity.  Revelation, which clearly uses Daniel imagery, tells us to "calculate" 666 in the most famous use of numerology.

Numbers as superstition

Numbers surround us and some of them tell a story.  Unfortunately, not all numbers are meaningful.  We tend to give more credence to ideas that make good stories and so we sometimes assume more about numbers than is warranted.4 If 12 is "good" or "lucky" or "blessed", than it seems reasonable that 13 (or 11) is the opposite.  God uses numbers as language, but not all numbers and not at all times.  When we assume otherwise, we start down the path of superstition.

Numbers for discipline

The question, however, brings up a somewhat different use for numbers: as a discipline or reminder.  To remember that, for instance, Jesus was tempted in the desert for 40 days by observing Lent, seems only fitting.  As long as numbers themselves point to God and do not replace Him, I think they can be worth observing.

Parting shot

Having posted this on Friday the 13th, it's sure to be downvoted and probably will destroy the internet.  I'm sorry you asked.

1. Baseball is a great example of this.  To a fan, the title the movie 61* is completely descriptive.  We know exactly what the story will be about without reading the summary.  SciFi (and humor) nerds don't need to be told the significance of 42 (as pointed out in the comments).  In the US, we all recognize 911, 1776, and 13 as being important symbols, though there might be several interpretations of their meanings.

2. Depending on how literal or not you take Genesis 1, this could be seen as a just-so story, but that does not alter the fact that the number 7 acquired meaning independent of what was counted.

3. Levi received no land for an inheritance.

4. A good place to explore the narrative fallacy is Nassim Nicholas Taleb's The Black Swan and Fooled by Randomness.


Do Catholics reject the sola of the Reformation The Reformation brought five solas that gives bonderies on how the Protestant view the biblical teaching. Here is the five solas:

1. Sola Gratia            (By grace alone)
2. Soli Deo Gloria        (To God alone be the glory)
3. Sola Fide              (By faith alone)
4. Sola Scriptura         (The scripture as only basis)
5. Solus Christus         (By Christ alone)

Does Catholic teachings reject or approved them? How?

The purpose of the five solas was to contrast the Protestant Reformation from the contemporary Roman Catholic teaching:

Sola gratia: that grace alone is the only thing necessary for salvation, and that the supposed Roman Catholic belief of good works affecting salvation is incorrect
Soli Deo gloria: that glory is given to God alone, and that the Roman Catholic glorification of the saints (especially Mary) and the Pope is wrong
Sola fide: that forgiveness of sins is achieved through faith alone, and not through faith plus good works as believed by the Church
Sola scriptura: that the Bible is the only thing necessary to understand God's word, and that the Church's reliance on sacred tradition is wrong
Solus Christus: that Christ is the head of the Church, and that salvation comes only through him and not some intermediary, like the Pope, the priesthood, or the saints.

They're presented in such a way as to argue what the Church teaches is wrong, and as such, the Roman Catholic Church rejects all five as they were formulated and argued simpliciter.

The Church's response to the implications derived from the five solas has been similar to its reponse to much of Protestant teaching; that they're based on misinterpretation and misapplication of the scriptures or of the Church body:

The Church affirmed the doctrine of sola gratia twice: first in 529 at the Second Council of Orange, and again in 1545 at the Council of Trent.
The Church agrees that all glory is to God alone, but that the recognition of the saints is to glorify God, and that the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ.
The Church rejects the Biblical standing upon which sola fide is founded, just as the Protestants reject the Biblical basis upon which the doctrine of faith plus grace/good works is founded.
The Church believes the doctrine of sola scriptura has no Biblical basis, and while the Bible is authoritative, the Gospels state the Church has the authority to teach and interpret it (for example, Matthew 18:18).
The head of the Roman Catholic Church is, in fact, Jesus Christ: and only through His grace we are saved. However, the sacraments, performed by the Church, confer that grace (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus).


What is the biblical basis for the belief that some people will live eternally on earth? In a well-known passage, the Apostle Paul writes:

  For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel's call and with the sound of God's trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will be with the Lord forever. (1 Thessalonians 4:16–17, emphasis added)

This suggests that Paul was thinking in terms of an older cosmology, in which angels were believed to live in the sky (the New Testament Greek word for "sky" is the same as the word for "heaven"), and that he is here saying that those who are saved would live forever with the Lord "in the air," like the angels, and therefore not on earth.

The final two chapters of the Book of Revelation, about the New Jerusalem, begin:

  Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. (Revelation 21:1–2)

Here there is mention of a new heaven and a new earth. However, although the New Jerusalem is seen as coming down out of heaven from God, there is no mention of the New Jerusalem actually touching down on the earth. And its description of being just as high as it is wide and long (Revelation 21:15–16), suggests a city that is seen high above the earth rather than one built on the surface of the earth as the original Jerusalem was.

However, some groups, such as Jehovah's Witnesses, believe that many or all of those who are saved will live on earth rather than in heaven after the resurrection.

What is the biblical basis for this belief?

I am especially interested in any Bible passages stating in an unmistakable way that any resurrected people will live on earth. Failing that, I am interested in Bible-based arguments that some or all people will live forever in their resurrected bodies on earth rather than in heaven.

Jehovah's Witnesses draw the belief of living forever on Earth for a few reasons.

The first of which was God's original purpose for mankind when he placed Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. While this original purpose has been postponed by sin and Satan's challenge to God's sovereignty, it is still God's will for mankind.

  Further, God blessed them, and God said to them: “Be fruitful and become many, fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving on the earth.”
  —Genesis 1:28

  For this is what Jehovah says,
  The Creator of the heavens, the true God,
  The One who formed the earth, its Maker who firmly established it,
  Who did not create it simply for nothing, but formed it to be inhabited:
  “I am Jehovah, and there is no one else.
  —Isaiah 45:18

  9 Remember the former things of long ago,
  That I am God, and there is no other.
  I am God, and there is no one like me.
  10 From the beginning I foretell the outcome,
  And from long ago the things that have not yet been done.
  I say, ‘My decision will stand,
  And I will do whatever I please.’
  11 I am calling a bird of prey from the sunrise,
  From a distant land the man to carry out my decision.
  I have spoken, and I will bring it about.
  I have purposed it, and I will also carry it out.
  —Isaiah 46:9-11

Psalm 37 tells us of a time when the righteous ones will possess the earth forever.

  9 For evil men will be done away with,
  But those hoping in Jehovah will possess the earth.
  10 Just a little while longer, and the wicked will be no more;
  You will look at where they were,
  And they will not be there.
  11 But the meek will possess the earth,
  And they will find exquisite delight in the abundance of peace.
  —Psalm 37:9-11

  The righteous will possess the earth,
  And they will live forever on it.
  —Psalm 37:29

Finally, Revelation 21 tells us that "death will be no more." Since death has never existed in heaven, this must refer to the earth.

  3 With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: “Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his people. And God himself will be with them. 4 And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.”
  —Revelation 21:3, 4

(For a complete article, there's "What Is God's Purpose For the Earth?")


Interfaith marriage in Christianity with Bible reference I am a Muslim...and I need to learn about interfaith marriage in Christianity with Bible references.

The Bible verse most commonly cited about this issue is 2nd Corinthians, Chapter 6 verse 14:

  Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? (NIV)

This is generally taken as a very strong discouragement, if not prohibition, of Christians marrying non-Christians. There are also several places in the Old testament where God commands the Jews not to marry those of other faiths, specifically lest that cause them to depart from worshipping the Lord. While Old Testament prohibitions are not usually regarded as binding on Christians, this does tend to back up the idea that marrying someone of another faith will tend to take you away from your faith.

Most Christian denominations believe it is a bad idea to marry someone not of the faith. Apart from the above Bible verse, marrying a non-Christian is something that is probably going to take you away from your faith, or at best be a distraction from it. It's also going to put stresses on a marriage for the two partners to have fundamentally different life views. Even secular marriage counsellors will point out that such marriages can have severe challenges.

Christians differ in their response when someone marries outside the faith. It's unlikely, in the Western world, for a family or community to completely cut off someone who marries outside the faith, and on the rare occasions it happens it's as frequently for cultural reasons as it is for reasons of faith. Roman Catholics will sometimes even permit such a marriage to happen with the blessing of the church, as long as there is a promise to bring up any children in the Catholic faith.


Are there Christian denominations that promote making themselves eunuchs? In the same way that certain denominations promote (and in some cases, require) their adherents to remain celibate and/or non-married, are there any that promote making themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of God like Jesus talked about in Matthew 19?

Jesus brought up the practice as if it was somewhat common.

  Matthew 19:9-12 ESV And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”

I've heard of individual men that have done this, but never a group.

While not a denomination, the Church Father / Heretic Origen is probably your most famous practitioner.  Then again, even the other Church Fathers had a difficult time with his understanding of Scripture on several accounts.

There are few denominations that would encourage the practice, as it tends to reduce the number of followers dramatically.  Historically, any group that discourages procreation - such as the Shakers - found it difficult to survive more than a generation.  While they may not have castrated themselves, their celibacy functionally made them eunuchs.

Jesus was not necessarily implying normative behavior here - indeed, a better reading would say, "there are a few who went this way."  Priestly celibacy is really the natural outcome - but notice it is considered a ascetism for the few.  Not all can handle it.


What is the Old Testament Biblical basis to the idea that only God can forgive sins? Mark 2:7 and Luke 5:21 have scribes and Pharisees claiming that only God can forgive sins.

"Why does this man speak like this? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive
sins but God alone?"

and

"But the scribes and Pharisees began thinking to themselves, “Who is
this man who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive sins but God alone?”"

What is the Old Testament Biblical basis to the claim that God alone can forgive sins, and not one who is delegated with authority by God?

Under the Jewish theocracy, wilful disregard of the positive, or wilful infraction of the negative, commands of God as proclaimed by Moses and interpreted by the Rabbis; it thus includes crimes against God and crimes against society or an individual member thereof.
…
The earliest Biblical conception of what constituted sin is illustrated by the story of Adam's punishment, which was due to his failure to obey the divine will and his revolt against the divine government.
The catastrophe of the Flood was a punishment for man's demoralization and corruption, his violence and immorality (see Gen. vi. 11, 12).
The builders of the Tower of Babel revolted against divine government, and were dispersed (see Gen. xi. 1-9).
Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for their heinous crimes: "The men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly" (Gen. xiii. 13): they were "wicked" in civil matters, "sinners" in blasphemy "exceedingly," with full appreciation of the enormity of their sins (Sanh. 109a).
The Egyptians were punished for the sin of enslaving the Israelites, and for not heeding the command of God to release them.
The most serious sin of the Israelites was the worship of the golden calf, contrary to God's commandments delivered from Sinai.
Korah rebelled against the authority of Moses, and of the Levites, priests by the choice of God.
The Canaanites practised incest and immorality: "For they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them" (Lev. xx. 23); "But for the wickedness of these nations the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee" (Dout. ix. 5).
…
Jewish theology does not admit that there is an unpardonable sin. The Mishnah says that sins are expiated (1) by sacrifice, (2) by repentance at death or on Yom Kippur, (3) in the case of the lighter transgressions of the positive or negative precepts, by repentance at any time.
— SIN - JewishEncyclopedia.com

The dominant theme here is that sin is willful disobedience of God's commandments.
As 1 John 3 explains it in the New Testament:

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Sin is disrespecting God.
The idea that anyone other than God himself could forgive direct attacks against him just doesn't make sense.
Suppose someone did something awful against you.
Would it make sense for me to forgive them?
Would you ever consider delegating someone else to offer forgiveness every time someone hurts you?
Or consider the reverse analogy.
Would it ever make sense to delegate your ability to love someone to a third person?


May the Pope waive the requirements of Canon Law in the appointment of bishops? Earlier this year, as part of the effort to normalize relations between the Vatican and China, the New York Times reported that the Vatican asked one of its bishops to step down to make way for a state-approved individual.  This individual had been previously excommunicated from the Church, perhaps simply for acting as a bishop without papal approval (per Canon 1382).
It seemed strange to me that someone could go straight from being excommunicated to being a bishop, so I looked up the qualifications for bishops, and found Canon 378, which says that suitable candidates "must":

1° be outstanding in strong faith, good morals, piety, zeal for souls, wisdom, prudence and human virtues, and possess those other gifts which equip him to fulfil the office in question;
2° be held in good esteem;
3° be at least 35 years old;
4° be a priest ordained for at least five years;
5° hold a doctorate or at least a licentiate in sacred Scripture, theology or canon law...

On the surface, numbers 1, 2, and 4 seem to be a bit tricky to apply to an excommunicated Catholic, except perhaps in the case of #4, if we're allowed to count years of service as a priest prior to excommunication.
However, Canon 378 goes on to say, in §2:

The definitive judgement on the suitability of the person to be promoted rests with the Apostolic See.

My question, then, is – does the pope have the ability to disregard any or all of the requirements of Canon 378 with respect to the qualifications of bishops, in order to appoint someone of his choice?
That is, should §2 be read as saying that the pope may waive the age requirement, or the years of service requirement, at his own discretion?  Or does his "definitive judgement" apply only to the more subjective requirements, like qualifications #1 and #2?
I realize too that there are some circumstances in which the Pope can simply "violate" Canon Law, since he has the authority to amend it anyway, but I don't know if this is such an area.

Short answer: The Pope can.

  Can. 331 CIC: The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.

The Pope has the full power over the Church. He establishes the canon law and can abolish it, in general or for one case. He is only bound to divine law, but that is no problem here.

In context of the appointment of bishops this is clearly stated in the CIC.

  Can. 377 §1. The Supreme Pontiff freely appoints bishops or confirms those legitimately elected.

The Pope should follow the requirements stated in can. 378 § 1, but is not required to.  Ending a schism seems to me a very good reason for behaving in a unusual way.

By the way: I think a canidate can fulfill the requirements of can. 378 § 1 even if he was excommunicated. When he is appointed he has to be in communion again (see KorvinStarmast's answer).


When were the doctrine and covenants published and distributed to members of the LDS church? I know that the doctrines and covenants to the LDS church are scriptures that came by revelation.

In what date range was that book of scripture written?

At what date was that book of scripture published and distributed to the majority of the church?

The first revelations were written while Joseph Smith was translating the Book of Mormon, beginning about 1828. It was decided in 1831 to publish a compilation as the  "Book of Commandments", at the press that was being established in Independence, Missouri. The printing was in progress but not complete when the printing office was mobbed and destroyed in July 1833. An expanded version was printed two years later (1835) in Kirtland, Ohio. This was the first published version generally available. Subsequent editions included more revelations, until the death of Joseph Smith in 1844, although successors have added a few more sections and a couple of "Offical Declarations".