Significance of Virgins in the Catholic Church Why are Virgins so popular in the Catholic Church (specifically in Mexico and Latin America)?  Aside from the obvious, Virgin Mary, there are "Virgins" of practically every major Catholic Church throughout Mexico.  The Virgin of Guadalupe is the most famous one, I believe.  Where I live, there are two parishes that could not each afford their own Virgin (you can buy Virgins?), so they pooled their resources, and now share one.  Every 6 months, there's a big ceremony in which the Virgin is transported with much fanfare from one to the other.

What is the significance of these Virgins?
Is this practice specific (or more common) to Mexico and Latin America, or is it common in Catholic Churches world-wide?
What exactly are these Virgins?  Clearly they represent a person who once lived; are the bodies of these people what is being transported and/or stored?
Why aren't virgin males important?

These virgins need a disambiguation.

Virgin Mary

On the one hand, La Virgen, Is Our Lady, Blessed Mother. She's the only Holy Mother of God the Blessed Virgin Mary. That's her with her place of honor on the side of the altar at most Catholic Churches throughout the world.  If you hear of her under the title of La Guadalupana (Our Lady of Guadalupe), Our Lady of Lourdes, Our Lady of the Snows, Our Lady of Fatima, Our Lady of La Salette, Our Lady of Kibeho or any of the titles in the Litany of Loreto then that's still her.  It's a worldwide thing, but Latin America is particularly fond of Our Lady of Guadalupe, and with good reason, according to this book her apparition in Mexico is responsible for millions of conversions and the end of human sacrifice!

We don't have her remains since she was assumed into heaven, so the statues are just statues. Every church has an altar with some relic of a saint in it (anything from a bone to something a saint wore or a piece of their casket).  Sometimes relics are transported from place to place in a procession (which is a lot of fun).  It wouldn't be a relic of Our Lady though.  Statues are blessed and are sacramentals, so they do have some significance in the Church, but aren't to be prayed to as idols ever.  There probably is a bit of pride in having a beautiful statue of La Virgen, but that's about it.

The titles that Mary goes by more akin to those given to her Queenship, like all the titles you'd see the King of France go by (and go through).  They're not different virgins, they're titles she is given (by the grace of God, as even the king of France would have said) when she conquers a nation for her Son (in a real an spiritual sense).

Holy Virgins

On the other hand you have the holy virgins.  Unless otherwise noted, those are the female saints who took vows be a spouse of Christ who didn't die a martyrs death.

Male saints who take similar vows are usually referred to as Confessors, not because they heard a lot of confessions, but because they confessed the faith. Male chastity is every bit as reverenced and useful as female in the Church.  Can't give you a legit explanation of why men aren't titled under 'virgin', but keep in mind most church words (Ordinary, Common etc...) have completely different connotative meanings than in ordinary and common usage. (that was a Catholic joke, har har).

Regarding the title 'virgin'

Catholic calendars usually say, St. Agnes Virgin, Martyr to signify which prayers are supposed to be read in the Liturgy of the Hours (unless otherwise noted the section you read for a saint like St. Agnes is called the 'Common of Virgins') it also signifies what colors are supposed to be worn by the priest at Mass. Red for martyrs, white for other saints (including virgins).


Meaning of term "satisfactory" in T. S Eliot's Journey of the Magi In T. S. Eliot's "The Journey of the Magi", the following line appears:

  Finding the place; it was (you may say) satisfactory

Context: The three magi have arrived at the barn and one of them states that it arriving there after their long journey was simply "satisfactory".

I read somewhere that the term has different meanings in religious contexts and was wondering if anyone could expand on them?

To any who are more familiar with Eliot, if the poem is said to be a metaphor for his conversion and reaching the barn is a symbol of him finally being converted, why would he feel that it was simply "satisfactory"?

You are right in thinking that the word satisfactory has a particular meaning in Christianity. It describes the effect of Christ's death in achieving reconciliation between humanity and God.

The root meaning of satisfy is to do enough.

There are several theories and beliefs about exactly how Christ's death achieves human salvation. Some, but not all, of these are based on the concept of the satisfaction of God's honour or justice.

St Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th century developed the view that because God's honour had been offended by human sin, this honour needed to be restored. The death of Christ paid such honour to God that it satisfied, did enough, some say infinitely more than enough, to restore God's honour. This view was developed more fully by Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century.

A different understanding, known as the Penal Substitution theory, was developed by Calvin and others in the sixteenth century. This understanding is that God's justice, rather than his honour, was offended by human sin, and that Christ's suffering and death satisfied this justice.

There is a brief article inTheopedia which discusses these in slightly more detail, and shelf upon shelf in university libraries that go deeper. The Theopedia article summarises the Anselmian and Calvinist understandings of satisfaction as .

  For Anselm, Christ obeyed where we should have obeyed; for Calvin, he was punished where we should have been punished.

Most Catholics and Protestants hold to the Satisfaction theory in one or other form.

Although the word satisfactory sometimes has connotations of bare sufficiency, this is not the connotation here. To satisfy God's honour and/or justice required nothing less than Christ's sacrifice.

The Prayer of Consecration at Holy Communion in the Church of England Prayer Book includes these words about Jesus, who:

  suffered death upon the Cross for our redemption; who made there (by his one oblation of himself once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world

TS Eliot's poem belongs to the field of English Literature, but as a churchwarden in London, he would surely have been aware of the Christian understanding of "satisfactory", and the Prayer of Consecration.


Why did the early Christians think Jesus would return soon? In multiple New Testament passages the Disciples and even Jesus appear to think He would return within one generation or so:

Jesus says, 'What I say to you, I say to all: Watch, for you know not the hour ...' or 'Some here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.' (Mt 16, Lk 9)
Paul encourages people to remain in their current states of life (e.g. celibate) in anticipation of Jesus' return.
The Christians waited to produce a written record of Jesus' teachings when need for it became apparent. (Such need was not immediately apparent because they thought Jesus would return soon.)

I can only guess that Jesus' return and the hour of our death are equivalent, hence Jesus tells everyone to keep watch, but I don't see that this interpretation is supported by the text. Rather, the text literally suggests that the end of the world would come at any time, but then Jesus has delayed it by 2,000 years, which seems unjust to all those generations, and to us as well, leaving us in a kind of painful suspense.

So what's the deal? Why did Jesus cause and allow the early Christians to be mistaken about the timeframe of His return?

I did read a book arguing that Jesus was actually using symbolic language to refer to the Roman destruction of Jerusalem, but this theory merely replaces those questions with why Jesus would make His written testimony unreasonably difficult to understand.

So your really important question is this:
"Why did Jesus cause and allow the early Christians to be mistaken about the timeframe of His return?" Let's figure that out, before we attempt to answer this headline question: "Why did the early Christians think Jesus would return soon?"

I've often wondered about what Jesus was saying in Matthew 24:36 & Mark 13:32 during Jesus' 2nd coming.

Matthew 24:36 (NKJV): “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only.”

Mark 13:32 (NKJV): “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”

The Bible informs us that God knows everything, thus making Him omniscient.

1 John 3:20 (NKJV): "For if our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and knows all things."

The Bible also tells us that Jesus is God.

John 1:1 (NKJV) "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

John 20:31 (NKJV) "but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name."

Now that we've found where the Bible states that God knows all things & that Jesus is God, then how does Jesus (who is God)... not know the day, nor the hour?

I came up with these ideas:

Jesus who is God is also a human on Earth, before He died & rose again. That's how He identifies with us. So when He was born & growing up, He wouldn't have known when He'd return the 2nd time (or 3rd time, if you count His resurrection as the 2nd time). He may have had to wait until after He ascended into Heaven to learn that information from God the Father.
God the Father may not yet have chosen which day nor hour, that the return will happen. If He hasn't yet decided, then nobody knows. Thus Jesus' quotes in Matthew 24:36 & Mark 13:32 would still be 100% accurate. (Don't quote me on that idea, but at least it satisfied my initial curiosity in the past about those 2 verses. It freed me from worrying about them & allowed me to move on towards learning new things.)
From reading the Bible, I've discovered some more details... like God is patient & He is still waiting for Israel to do something. (This sounds like the most accurate of these 3 ideas. Let me explain why....)

2 Peter 3:9 (NKJV) "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance."

Part of the problem appears to be that the Jewish Pharisees & Scribes of the law didn't want to honor Jesus as God. They should have known when Jesus was coming the 1st time:

Luke 19:41-42 (NKJV): "Now as He drew near, He saw the city and wept over it, saying, “If you had known, even you, especially in this your day, the things that make for your peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes."

The people did acknowledge & honor Jesus as God in Matthew 21:9 (on the 1st Palm Sunday), but the religious leaders did not. (But the people wanted a king who would free them from the Roman occupation. They weren't looking for a new religious leader... God. They wanted a military king, like David.)

Matthew 21:9 (NKJV): "Then the multitudes who went before and those who followed cried out, saying:

“Hosanna to the Son of David!
‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’
Hosanna in the highest!”"

Then Jesus says,

Matthew 23:39 (NKJV): "for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’"

Now before this in verse 29, Jesus starts off with: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!...”

Apparently, God is still waiting for Israel (especially, the religious elite in Jerusalem... today known as rabbis) to acknowledge & honor Him as God. The end of the world won't happen, before that point.

The Hebrew leaders who left Egypt during the Exodus, saw God with their own eyes... before having a feast in front of Him:

Exodus 24:9-11 (NKJV): "Then Moses went up, also Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, and they saw the God of Israel. And there was under His feet as it were a paved work of sapphire stone, and it was like the very heavens in its clarity. But on the nobles of the children of Israel He did not lay His hand. So they saw God, and they ate and drank."

So initially, God was happy with His people. :-)

The early Christians could have been mistaken about the timeframe of Jesus' 2nd coming, as they didn't have access to personalized copies (nor online versions) of the Bible, where they could study for themselves. They had scrolls, auditory knowledge from preaching & shared letters. Today, we have the ability to do our own Bible study homework, both in print form & online.

Now, Zechariah 14 & Amos 5:16-27 both talk about the Day of the Lord, which hasn't come yet. You can read those if you'd like to do that.

So what about this question? "Why did the early Christians think Jesus would return soon?"

During Jesus' day, there was a temple in Jerusalem. It was the 2nd temple. At the end of the world, there will be another temple, the 3rd temple. Here are some links about that 3rd temple, which contain additional Bible verses in these articles:

The Third Temple
End-Time Prophecy: Why is the Third Temple so Important?

In Jesus day, they had a temple. So it would have been easy for them to assume, that Jesus could return at any time.

After reading Amos 5, it seems clearer that God doesn't want the 3rd temple's sacrifice system:

Amos 5:22 (NKJV): "Though you offer Me burnt offerings and your grain offerings, I will not accept them, Nor will I regard your fattened peace offerings."

After the temple was destroyed in AD 70, there hasn't been a temple in Israel. Most of the people were older or dead at that point. So they would have realized the need to write everything down.

Revelation appears to have been written after the temple was destroyed & before AD 96. See:

When Was the Book of Revelation Written?
Wikipedia: Revelation

I would assume that some people wanted Jesus' return to happen early - in their lifetimes - for the same reason that people today want the "Rapture" to happen early in our lifetimes. People are terrified of death. The problem isn't death itself, but what lies beyond death. For the believers, it's an eternal happiness in Heaven. For the unbelievers, it's a firey torturous experience in hell. People are afraid of going into hell, so they tend to want Jesus to return early to avoid death & hell.

John talks about Heaven, starting with Revelation 4. Revelation, gives us hope that a brighter future is coming! Here is some encouragement to brighten your day:

Acts 16:31 (NKJV): "So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”"

Romans 10:9 (NKJV): "that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."

So don't worry too much about when Jesus will return, but focus more on the quality of your relationship with God. Keep reading your Bible. The more times, the better! You'll find out in Heaven, that you'll gain eternal rewards from continually reading it. If you'd like to see a bit of that before then, check out these links, about which crowns that believers can receive in Heaven:

https://www.gotquestions.org/heavenly-crowns.html
http://so4j.com/five-crowns-rewards-in-heaven

Hopefully, that answers some of your questions! :-)


How is the Son begotten? The early church agree that the Son is begotten by the Father.

  "To beget is to produce an offspring of same nature."

The Father has no beginning that is why the Son has no beginning (like begets like).

Pre-Nicene Church Father Tertullian explains the begetting this way:

  God made [the pre-existent] Logos [a] second [person] to himself by agitating it within
  him.

St. Athanasius explains the begetting in this way:

  The Son is not "from nothing" but "from the Father".

How is the Son begotten?

Most theologians do not speculate as far as your question searches, but then again I think it is a valid question. The idea of the Son being begotten from the Father does not carry a connotation of time being that it was before time existed. Your question is therefore what connotation is expressed by 'begotten' if time is irrelevant? It would seem that the connotation of 'some essential filial' aspect of the Trinity is implied, so that in some sense the Father produces the Son, yet not independently of by his will alone. Without the Son there would be no Father, as God is Father, Son and Holy Ghost; eternally past, eternally present and eternally future, always and forever the same.  This may seem like a 'non-asswer' as it deals with the unknown but if we appreciate it as a basic manifestation of the triune relationships between the three persons of the unchanging Godhead, it naturally helps us understand that as God approaches time and his creation, he sent his Son and not himself. I mean the Father sent the Son to save us through an incarnation because the Father begets the Son and not viva-versa. The Spirit does not send the Son, the Son does not beget the Father, rather the Father begot the Son and both the Son and the Father sent the Holy Spirit.

The relational aspects within the three persons of the Trinity our incomprehensible to us as they stand outside of time because we only live and understand a world in time. We can only really perceive its meaning within the time that God has entered to make himself known, the gospel. So how is the Son produced? Eternally, we can't know the inner workings of the Trinity beyond its basic definitions and assertion, but as the Father does eternally produce the Son outside of the concept of time, the Father has partly manifested what that means 'in time' by the incarnation.


What is considered chaste behaviour from a Catholic perspective? The Catholic church teaches that sexual love between a man and a woman is to be reserved to within marriage.

My question is in the opinion of the Catholic church what is defined as pre-marital1 sexual activity and what is considered chaste behaviour? It seems from the little information I have found on it that intention, action and result are all to be considered. However, what is considered unchaste, for instance would any activity that can lead to orgasm be considered unchaste? Would tender kissing to show affection be unchaste? Would the same action be unchaste if it were for sheer enjoyment?

Or perhaps is there some other definition or key idea that I am missing?

1. i.e. For the unmarried

I kind of think the answer to this question is purely pastoral.  It's not in any Encyclical or the Catechism, but the answer comes to a person who forms their conscience well and the Church has a lot of guidance on how to form your conscience.

Seek first the Kingdom and the Will of God.

Marriage (and the acts that follow) is what God calls man to most of the time,  we can tell it's His will through the natural law (it's the only way we're going to get anything accomplished) and because He said so "Go forth and multiply" in Genesis a few times. But, even though it seems obvious that you should just have sex right away. It may not actually be the right person you're having sex with therefore:
Pray with (and for) your future spouse

In one very Jewish story that only Catholics and Orthodox seem to remember is the story of Tobias who, not wanting to be killed on his wedding night by the demon in his wife, prayed with her before the consummated their marriage. And
Pray for purity every day

This is a pretty concrete and well known practice of praying three hail mary's before bed for purity of heart.  Purity is something you pretty much always get when you ask for.

So, I know that you probably think that didn't answer your question in the least, but that's the approach a Catholic might take in forming their conscience towards the questions that you raised.

What I, as a Catechist, would tell my students if they asked how far they could go with their boyfriends or girlfriends.  Is that the purpose of dating in null, what they need to do is court.  That involves knowing the entire family of ones future spouse and getting to know them intimately so that you know if your heart is in the right place.  Kissing, other than customary kissing, shouldn't be a part of that pre-marital relationship.  You shouldn't have any sexual intimacy that would be reserved for marriage before marriage.  That would be unchaste.

Chastity is a virtue, not a verb, like all virtues, it's really a spiritual muscle that can be worked up over time to just react rightly in all situations.


Churches that Teach Tradition as Inspired have Different Traditions. How do They Explain This? Some denominations (Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic) teach different Traditions that contradict each other.  An obvious example of this is the papacy (RC says correct.  EO says incorrect.).  Both groups claim to be apostolic.  They may even say each other is apostolic.  Both claim their Traditions to be correct and traceable to God.  How can this be?

Examples of different Tradition.

Nature of bread at Pascha
Filioque
Papacy
Nature of Sin
Nature of Man
Contents of Canon
Nature of authority (council or pope)

See here and here for more details of the differences.

PS.  I'm not asking which of the various Traditions are true.  I'm only asking for an explanation of how those two denominations come up with their Traditions, given that each say their Traditions source to God.

It seems the implicit logic of your question is the following:

Premise 1: group A claim to be infallible
Premise 2: group B claim to be infallible
Premise 3: doctrine of group A and B contradict each other
Conclusion: neither group A nor group B is infallible

As you can see, this is a non sequitur. The proper conclusion is:

Conclusion: group A or group B cannot be infallible at the same time.

This conclusion still allows either group to be infallible.

So, for the sake of the argumentation, let us assume group A is indeed infallible, but group B is not. How is it possible that group B declares itself to be infallible, without being so?

The answer is evident if we rephrase the question. Is it possible for group B to declare false doctrine? Of course! The alternative - no group can declare false doctrine - is nonsense! In a world were God gives human being liberty, the possibility of error (and heresy) must be allowed. What kind of faith is this if not?

In fact, the non sequitur you are implicitly assuming destroys every single religious faith in the world. The fact that there are so many different Christian (and Muslim and Jewish, and etc) denominations cannot per se imply that they are all wrong.

Ask yourself:

  Different Protestant churches derive different (salvific) interpretations from the same Scripture. How do they explain this?


Why did the Old Testament command to kill? I've been reading the answers given in this similar question or even in the "duplicate question" but they don't respond to my question which is slightly different.  I'm not wondering if Killing is legit or not, but WHY God commanded to kill in the Old Testament.

This is a very common question asked by atheist as a way to show Bible inconsistencies and I believe the question and answers given in the previous questions are not exactly answering that.

I'm wondering why, in the first moment, God in the Old Testament was commanding to kill other people when in the New Testament killing is totally forbidden and Jesus never commanded it in any case.

It sounds like two different Gods: the aggressive one and the pacifist.

Some quotes from the old Testament commanding to kill are the following ones:

Leviticus 20:13 NAB

  "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."

2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB

  They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.

Exodus 22:17 NAB

  You should not let a sorceress live.

Leviticus 20:27 NAB

  A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death.

Personally, I think that the primary difference is that the New Testament "gives to Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God that which is God's".  There is, in essence, in the Christian faith, a separation from what is legal and what is right in faith in Christ.  Whereas the Old Testament is both the law of God (those things that an individual should or should not do), which Christians still believe, and the law of the land of Israel (the legal consequences for disobeying the moral law).  Christians no longer adhere to the latter because they are dispersed among the nations (we don't stone people anymore for violating the moral law, we obey the legal system that is over us).  The same would technically be true of Jews. Jews are not stoning adulterers in the United States but allowing the United States' legal system handle those things.  Or if we prefer Biblical cases: Daniel did not stone the Babylonians for the evil they did when he was in Babylon.  Daniel kept to the moral law for himself...the law is good...but he did not pursue Israeli civil and criminal punishments against the Babylonians.

When Jesus refused to stone the woman caught in adultery, He did not say that the law against adultery was bad, and he did not say that stoning was wrong.  However, he did not stone the woman.  There seem to be two grounds for this: 1) It was against Roman law for them to stone the woman, and 2) Mercy and forgiveness are greater than the law of sin and death. While it is not wrong to punish someone for their sins, it is also not wrong to forgive, and forgiveness is greater. Pretty much the entire book of Romans will do more justice to this idea than I can give here.

Two additional things to note:

Jesus did not abolish the law (Matt 5:17).
Jesus did not lower the bar of morality but raised the bar.  Now lust is adultery (Matt 5:28), etc.

As to specifically killing.  In the United States, we do kill 1st degree murderers at times, and it's legal to kill in self-defense.  Many Christians support these laws and would kill in self-defense.  Though, some Christians like the Amish would not even kill in self-defense to my knowledge.

Ultimately, regardless of the laws of the land, the Christian is charged to do what is right, which is never illegal in any country:

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law." (Gal 5:22-23, emphasis added)


What happened to the Sarum rite? The Sarum rite was the traditional rule of liturgical worship for Catholics in England, and to some extent in the rest of the British Isles, for many years. It is related to the Roman rite, and to various other historical regional or diocesan versions. It is not used today, though I gather there are still Catholics and Anglo-Catholics who are interested in it (and even some Orthodox churches).

I've heard two stories about why it's defunct. Both relate to the restoration of the hierarchy in England, and of normal church order, in the nineteenth century.

English Catholics were asked whether they wanted to retain Sarum or adopt the Roman rite, and they chose the latter.
Despite the wishes of the local populace, Rome imposed its own rite in a quest for global liturgical conformity.

Which of these, if either, is true?

In addition to Wikipedia, I find the Catholic Encyclopedia useful for historical queries. It has an article on the Sarum Use.

The Use of Sarum was initiated there (Salisbury) in the eleventh century and spread throughout southern England. It was suppressed by the English Reformation and especially during the reign of Elizabeth I.

  Catholic Encyclopedia notes: During the few years of the reign of Mary Tudor an attempt was made in England to resuscitate the Sarum Use, which lingered on for sometime afterwards among the Seminary priests of persecution times; but it is now wholly obsolete, except, as the reader will have remarked, in so far as the Dominican, Carmelite and kindred Uses, cling, like that of Sarum, to certain liturgical practices derived from early Roman discipline, but which the Church has allowed to fall into desuetude.

That is, once Catholicism was outlawed, the Use of Sarum with its associated ceremonial became all but impossible to celebrate outside seminaries, and even they were suppressed. When catholics became tolerated again (with the Catholic Relief Act of 1778), and restored in 1829, it was the Tridentine Rite to which English Catholics turned as that was most readily accessed from the continent.

Neither of your options is really true: it was never suppressed by Rome, but it wasn't really a realistic option to recover.

As Matthew has noted in his answer, Anglicanorum coetibus has allowed Anglicans to join the Church [Yours Truly included], bringing their patrimony with them. It is a little ironic that elements of the Sarum Use are being re-introduced to the English Church with Anglicans influenced by the Oxford Movement, which made a conscious effort to draw on "English" pre-Reformation practices within the context allowed by law.


Marriage between syrian catholics and roman catholics? In Kerala, what is the difference between a Syrian Catholic and a Roman Catholic?
And can they marry each other?

The short answer is that any two Catholics, of any rite, have the right to marry one another (provided the usual conditions are met; i.e., that the couple consists of one man and one woman, and that both are free to marry).

The groups mentioned by the O.P. are simply autonomous churches that are both part of the Catholic Church, hence in full communion with one another.

Syrian Catholics vs. Latin Catholics

The Catholic Church, in addition to the Latin or Western Church that is the best well known, also has 23 autonomous Eastern churches in full communion with the universal Church. Among these are the two largest Eastern churches in India, the Syro-Malabar Church and the Syro-Malankar Church. Since both churches use a liturgy that is derived from the Syriac liturgy, they are sometimes called “Syrian Catholics.”

The O.P. used the term “Roman Catholics,” but that term is now seldom used in official Church documents. The more precise term for the largest group of Catholics is “Latin” or “Western” Catholics, to distinguish them from those who follow Eastern liturgical traditions.

However, in terms of their belonging to the universal Church, and being in communion with the Bishop of Rome (that is, the Pope), there is no difference between Western Catholics and Catholics from the Syro-Malabar or Syro-Malankar Church.

Marriage between Catholics of Different Catholic Churches

The Churches in full communion with the Catholic Church enjoy complete freedom to celebrate all the Sacraments in common, including matrimony.

That members of different autonomous churches may marry is implied by various canons of the Code of Canon Law, including the following:

  Can. 112 §1. After the reception of baptism, the following are enrolled in another ritual Church sui iuris:

  [...]

  2/ a spouse who, at the time of or during marriage, has declared that he or she is transferring to the ritual Church sui iuris of the other spouse; when the marriage has ended, however, the person can freely return to the Latin Church;

  3/ before the completion of the fourteenth year of age, the children of those mentioned in nn. 1 and 2 as well as, in a mixed marriage, the children of the Catholic party who has legitimately transferred to another ritual Church; on completion of their fourteenth year, however, they can return to the Latin Church.

  Can.  1109 Unless the local ordinary and pastor have been excommunicated, interdicted, or suspended from office or declared such through a sentence or decree, by virtue of their office and within the confines of their territory they assist validly at the marriages not only of their subjects but also of those who are not their subjects provided that one of them is of the Latin rite.

Similarly, the Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches says

  Canon 33 A wife is at liberty to transfer to the Church of the husband at the celebration of or during the marriage; when the marriage has ended, she can freely return to the original Church sui iuris.

  Canon 34 If the parents, or the Catholic spouse in the case of a mixed marriage, transfer to another Church sui iuris, children under fourteen years old by the law itself are enrolled in the same Church; if in a marriage of Catholics only one parent transfers to another Church sui iuris, the children transfer only if both parents consent. Upon completion of the fourteenth year of age, the children can return to the original Church sui iuris.

  Canon 829 §1 From the day of taking canonical possession of office and as long as they legitimately hold office, everywhere within the boundaries of their territory, local hierarchs and pastors validly bless the marriage of parties whether they are subjects or non-subjects, provided that at least one of the parties is enrolled in his Church sui iuris.


What was the Crown of Thorn in the Lord's Passion made of? At Matthew 27:29 we see :

"..and after twisting some thorns into a crown, they put it on his head. They put a reed in his right hand and knelt before him and mocked him, saying, “Hail, King of the Jews!”

I wish to know the name of the plant or the tree, the thorns of which were used by the soldiers to make the crown. Has the Catholic Church made some research into the nature and properties of the thorns ?

From New Advent the following

With regard to the origin and character of the thorns, both tradition and existing remains suggest that they must have come from the bush botanically known as Zizyphus spina Christi, more popularly, the jujube-tree. This reaches the height of fifteen or twenty feet and is found growing in abundance by the wayside around Jerusalem. The crooked branches of this shrub are armed with thorns growing in pairs, a straight spine and a curved one commonly occurring together at each point. The relic preserved in the Capella della Spina at Pisa, as well as that at Trier, which though their early history is doubtful and obscure, are among the largest in size, afford a good illustration of this peculiarity.

Picture is from Paliurus spina-christi Mill..


Should husbands submit to wives? There has been a lot of discussion in the news lately about the passage in Ephesians 5:22 instructing wives to submit to their husbands as unto the Lord. But no one ever seems to bring Ephesians 5:21 into the discussion which tells us to submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

How do we reconcile the two? Doesn't Ephesians 5:21 apply to husbands and wives?

Husbands are not called to submit to their wives.  That doesn't mean he uses his authority over her in a domineering way.  In fact, Paul goes on to describe how a husband should love his wife, which would include how he uses his authority.  That is, he should love her like Christ loves the church.

Paul relates the submission of wives to the way the church submits to Christ:

  Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.  For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands (Eph 5:22-24).

Note the key word "For" at the beginning of verse 23.  Its a grounding word and indicates that what comes next is the purpose for what is before it.  That is, wives should submit to their husbands because the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church.  If the husband is the head, the wife cannot also be the head.  Someone has to lead the marriage and God calls men especially to that role.

If you are going to say that husbands should submit to their wives, then using Paul's logic in the above verse (and therefore God's), you would also have to be saying that Christ should submit to the church.  Is anyone willing to make that argument?  Then you should be careful when arguing that husbands should submit to their wives.

The main problem with the mutual submission argument is an incorrect reading of the text, missing the intention of the original Greek word and context:

  So what reason can people give to argue for the "mutual submission"
  interpretation in Ephesians 5:21? Their argument is based on the
  expression, "one another" (the Greek pronoun allelous). Here
  interpreters say that the pronoun must mean "everyone to everyone"
  (that is, that it must be "exhaustively reciprocal," which means that
  it refers to something that every single person does to every single
  other person). To support this view, they quote a number of verses
  where allelous does take that sense: we are all to "love one another"
  (John 13:34) and "be servants of one another" (Gal. 5:13).

  But here is the crucial mistake: interpreters assume that because
  allelous means "everyone to everyone" in some verses, it must mean
  that in all verses. When they assume that, they simply have not done
  their homework-they have not checked out the way the word is used in
  many other contexts, where it doesn't mean "everyone to everyone," but
  "some to others."

That quote comes from Wayne Grudem: http://www.rockvalleybiblechurch.org/ResourceLibrary/MythOfMutualSubmission.htm  See that article for a more thorough explanation and discussion of this topic.

I understand men have often abused their authority and their wives under the pretext of the authority given them in this text. There is no excuse for their behavior and they will have to give an account for their actions.  But, nothing is made better by gutting the meaning of this text.  The meaning is clear, wives should submit to their husbands, and not the other way around.  If you don't like that, ok, let's discuss that.  But let's not try to make the text say what it doesn't say or prevent it from saying what it does say.


Are there any major / orthodox Christian leaders that taught that Paul didn't meet Jesus? I've heard the claim many times that "Paul never met Jesus." A simple Google search turns up scores of examples. It is usually in the context of those who are, how to say, "outside orthodoxy" and want to advocate giving less weight to the doctrinal content of Paul's epistles.

At face value, it seems a most fatuous claim, in that it would seem hard to assert a historical Paul without referring to the Book that gives us this encounter:

  He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" Acts 9:4

My question is whether any church leader "within orthodoxy" has asserted such a claim.   By "within orthodoxy", I am looking for papal statements, denominational founders (Wesley, Luther, Calvin, etc.), church fathers (those at ccel.org), or noted figures in evangelicalism.   (I'd even accept the Mormon prophet for purposes of this question.). Contemporary figures within "theologically liberal Christianity" not of interest here.

As far as I know, from my readings of Church Fathers, Saul's encounter were

First: seeing The Christ on the road to Damascus in a vision

“And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.” Acts 22:8, KJV.

Second: a vision in Jerusalem where he was given his marching orders,

“And he (The Lord) said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles.” Acts 22:21, KJV.

Third: during his visit to the third heaven that same year.

“I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.” 2 Corinthians 12:2-4, KJV.
And here it is agreed by many Church Fathers that Paul is talking about himself.

None of the Fathers is quoted as saying that Saul/Paul met with Jesus in the flesh. In the NT, Paul only quotes Jesus once, in reference to the Eucharist. So this shows his ignorance of Jesus.

Whether Paul met Jesus or not is a moot point. Christianity went ahead without reference to Judaism - only they borrowed the Prophets, and the Psalms, from the Septuagint, needed to give scriptural support to the New Testament theology. A sort of re-reading of the Hebrew scripture that fit the New ideas. This Old Testament, which the Hebrews considered to be heresy,  was incorporated into the Christian Bible during the 4th. cent.

Paul called his theology "my Gospel." Ro 2:16; 16:25; 2Ti 2:8. And we know if was different from the Gospel of the Apostles because the Pauline writings talk of the clashes with those from Jerusalem "who teach another Gospel." What the Church in Jerusalem taught (under James the Just, the brother of Jesus,) has been swept under the carpet, so to speak. What The Church is founded upon are teachings from the Pauline community.

For the nascent Christian/Pauline Church to prosper outside the Holy Land, it was important to turn over control of the Church to the Greeks, who had developed a theology which had The Risen Christ at its center, not Jesus the Messiah, who was a descendant of David, and not divine, but anointed to be King of Judea - hence "Jesus annointed." In Hebrew it was " Yeshuah Messiach," in Greek "Ihsous Christos",  all meaning anointed one (this was the theology of the Jerusalem Church and later the Ebionites.)

The Greek (later Roman) Church's revolutionary idea was called "The New Testament," - it came from the teaching of the Pauline Community, whose writings reached the Church in Rome in 140.

Without Paul, there would have been a Hebrew-Christian Church probably similar to those who vowed poverty, later called the Ebionites by their detractors, which religion died out by the 4th. cent. (but some scholars say later than this.)

Eventually the Hebrew disciples were driven from the Church by legalisms, and Judaism with them, including their God Yahweh (this is a simplification of what happened.) Without a God to call their own, Jesus was declared to be God - a declaration that didn't suit all the Bishops. And for another two hundred years, the various Christian churches ( there were some fifty denominations) fought over whether Jesus was human or divine, a man or God.

In the 4th. cent. Bishop Eusebius was empowered by the Pagan Emperor Constantine to bring all the Bishops of the Empire together to settle on one understanding of God. About 300 attended. All Bishops were required to declare that Jesus was God incarnate, or suffer excommunication. Only six objected, and were excommunicated (later re-instated as power was handed over to a new Bishop.)

By very skilful argument at this council of Nicea (as it became known,) almost all the Bishops were convinced that: Jesus, The Father, and the Holy Ghost were consubstatial - of the same essence but different personas. The Trinity in Unity was born in AD 325. It was tacitly understood that the Hebrew understanding of God had been incomplete.

Even today in my classes, some people say that the Hebrew God of wrath and justice, is not the same as the loving and merciful God of Christianity.

Almost everyone in Protestant America thinks that Paul had the correct understanding of what Christianity should be - despite the fact that, unlike the twelve, he never met Jesus, and never studied under him.

I expect a lot of flack with this posting. But: "Blessed are the peacemakers," Jesus said, so be patient.


What is the significance of presenting the Apostles as acting foolishly many times in the Gospels? Multiple times in the four Gospels, the Apostles seem to act foolishly. They are around Jesus for a long time, witness miracles, and still lose faith pretty easily. Another example: Jesus says a parable, they don't understand the meaning behind it, so Jesus needs to explain as if they were children. Or they try to heal the sick or perform exorcism, and fail miserably.

I'm wondering what significance has this depiction of the Apostles.

 If they only cared to look better and show later Christians that "the group you are joining is the best", they wouldn't have included these unflattering descriptions about themselves.

Please include either the view of a notable Christian denomination, or at least a citation from a notable theologian.

I think the answer can be summed up in what John the Baptist says regarding Jesus in John 3:30:

  "He must increase, but I must decrease."

That is to say, the Gospels were not primarily about bolstering confidence in the disciples, but rather about telling the truth about and bolstering confidence in Jesus.

In other words, I think you partially answered your own question, when you said, "If they only cared to look better and show later Christians that "the group you are joining is the best", they wouldn't have included these unflattering descriptions about themselves."

That's just the point, they weren't only trying to show later Christians that they group they are joining is the best.  They were telling the truth, and leaving it to the reader to decide whether to accept the truth or not.

  That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have
  seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our
  hands, concerning the word of life—  the life was made manifest, and
  we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal
  life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us— that
  which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too
  may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the
  Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.

The entirety of the Gospels is written to depict the interaction of God with the interaction of fallen, feeble, and confused human beings, so let me answer the question with a question:  How could the authors have demonstrated Jesus's patience and love for immature and confused people without showing their sinfulness, immaturity, weakness, and confusion?

The answer is, they can't.  The greatness and wisdom of Christ can only be seen clearly against the backdrop of the sinfulness and short-sighted nature of people.  Take away the immature sinful behavior of the disciples, and all you have is a set of smart, perfectly kind, loving people talking about smart, perfectly kind, loving things in complete agreement with one another.

Without conflict, there's no story.


If God set the maximum age to 120, then how could Jacob be 130 years old? At the time of Noah, God said:

  Genesis 6:3 NIV
  Then the LORD said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans
  forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and
  twenty years.”

Now, later on, we have the account of Jacob and his sons. When Jacob moves to Joseph in Egypt, the pharaoh of asks him of his age, to which he replies:

  Genesis 47:9 NIV
  And Jacob said to Pharaoh, “The years of my pilgrimage are a hundred
  and thirty. My years have been few and difficult, and they do not
  equal the years of the pilgrimage of my fathers.”

Is there any explanation for this? I guess that either you can interpret this as Jacob referring to something else then his true physical age (e.g. "the years of my pilgrimage" having some kind of special meaning), or he might have miscalculated, or God's rule of the maximum age of man might not apply to all, like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and other distinguished men of God.

There are a number of different theories as to the meaning of Genesis 6:3:

120 years to the flood

One common interpretation is that it's not talking about lifespan, but the amount of time humanity has to repent before the coming of the Flood.1,2

Aside: Genesis 7:6 tells us that Noah was 600 years old when the flood came, placing the flood 1656 years after the creation of Adam according to the dates in Genesis 5, thus placing the Genesis 6:3 statement at 1536 years after Adam's creation.

120 years left of Adam's life

Another argument is that many versions have slightly mistranslated this verse. If you compare translations you'll see that some have the passage relating to "humans" - all humanity (such as the NIV, which you've quoted), many others use the term "man". This is because the word that's interpreted here as "humans" can also mean "the man"; or, more specifically, "the man Adam". So this argument states that Gen 6:3 is not talking about everyone, but specifically that Adam had 120 years left to live at the time God made this statement.2

Aside: Genesis 5 tells us that Adam lived for 930 years, so this statement would have happened when he was 810 years old. According to the chronology in chapter 5, this places the statement after the birth of Methusela (Noah's grandfather) but 64 years before the birth of Lamech (Noah's father).

Human lifespan of 120 years

This is the way many versions of the Bible are translated, and of course the meaning you have taken from the passage. But as you say, there are several people recorded in the Bible that have lived longer than 120 years since then. It's worth noting of course that we don't know what methods were used for recording the passing of time in those days, and how accurate or otherwise those methods were. Moreover, Dr John Oakes tells us that it's really only a Western culture thing that puts such an emphasis on the exact-ness of numbers. A common example of not using time literally would be the phase “just a minute” or “in a second”.

A quick note on my asides above - here's a footnote from Genesis 5:31 in the Amplified Bible:

  It is now well known that the age of mankind cannot be
  reckoned in years from the facts listed in genealogies, for there are
  numerous known intentional gaps in them. For example, as B. B.
  Warfield (Studies in Theology) points out, the genealogy in Matt.
  1:1-17 omits the three kings, Ahaziah, Jehoash, and Amaziah, and
  indicates that Joram (Matt. 1:8) begat Uzziah, who was his
  great-great-grandson. The mistaking of compressed genealogies as bases
  for chronology has been very misleading. So far, the dates in years of
  very early Old Testament events are altogether speculative and
  relative, and the tendency is to put them farther and farther back
  into antiquity.


If a Pope does something wrong, or less than ideal, who is he representing? If/when a Pope does something wrong, who is he representing? is he a man who sins, just like the rest of us, or is he supposed to be sort of like the face of God, thereby showing that if he did something wrong, then the pope himself is a fake?

in other words, if a pope did do something unarguably sinful (so not debatable) what would that mean for him specifically, and then Catholics in general?

The Pope is not "the face of God": he is "primus inter pares"1 (the first between equals) - he is not "more bishop" than any other bishop, or "more perfect" than any other man. He is a sinner like all of us, but it's wise and the Church (under Holy Spirit's guide) choose him as chief.

He is not infallible (except in some special occasions, but historically it happened only two times) and he often consult other bishops for his decisions

1 "primus inter partes" is not an official title of the Pope (it refers to the Patriarchs of Constantinople, chief of Orthodox church). The official title of the Pope is "Vicar of Christ", but it's only a semantic difference. The Sacrament of Ordination has only 3 steps, and the pope has the "fullness of the sacrament of Holy Orders" just like other bishops. Pope, Cardinal, Archbishop and similar are human titles, no related to Sacraments - Source: Catechism of the Catholic Church


What about the story of the "Rich Man and Lazarus" indicates whether it is a parable or not? To extend this previous question, what about the text of the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man indicates whether it should be considered a parable or an "actual" account?

One thing that seems to distinguish parables from accounts of actual events is the absence of specific names for the people in the parables.  In the parables we read, "A sower" (Luke 8), "A rich man" (Luke 12, 15), "A man" (Luke 13, 14), "A Samaritan" (Luke 10).

However, in the account of the Rich Man and the Beggar, we are actually given the name of the beggar.  This is quite a distinction from all the other parables.  In addition, Jesus tells us that the rich man saw another specific man--the patriarch Abraham.

So, the fact that the rich man's name is withheld does support the idea of this being a parable.  Yet, the fact that two other specific people are identified by name seems to be stronger evidence to support the idea that this was an actual historical event with actual people.

The significance of this story comes in the reference to someone rising from the dead, as Jesus states that even if someone rises from the dead, some will not believe.  This is fulfilled in the fact that Jesus rose from the dead, and even the chief priests of the day continued in their refusal to believe in Him.

For reference:

  19 “There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and
  who feasted sumptuously every day. 20 And at his gate was laid a poor
  man named Lazarus, covered with sores, 21 who desired to be fed with
  what fell from the rich man's table. Moreover, even the dogs came and
  licked his sores. 22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels
  to Abraham's side.The rich man also died and was buried, 23 and in
  Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off
  and Lazarus at his side. 24 And he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have
  mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water
  and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.’ 25 But Abraham
  said, ‘Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good
  things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted
  here, and you are in anguish. 26 And besides all this, between us and
  you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass
  from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to
  us.’ 27 And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, to send him to my
  father's house— 28 for I have five brothers—so that he may warn them,
  lest they also come into this place of torment.’ 29 But Abraham said,
  ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 And he
  said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead,
  they will repent.’ 31 He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and
  the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise
  from the dead.’”  Luke 16:19-31 ESV


What is the biblical defence used by Anglicans to appoint female vicars/bishops? What is the biblical defence used by Anglicans to appoint female vicars/bishops?

I thought the Bible was explicitly clear:

  1 Timothy 2:12
  I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man; she is to remain quiet.

  1 Corinthians 14:34-35
  34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
  35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Ordination of women in the Anglican Communion (Wikipedia)

The Anglican church has different ordination guidelines in different countries, and often the parishes are allowed to make the decision for or against provided they give sufficient argument and evidence.

For example, although CofE as a rule accepts ordaining women, here is a case where it was forbidden: Anglican church bans women from vicar's job on 'biblical' grounds.

Arguments given

As you already know, it's a hot topic for debate. Typical biblical defences given by Anglicans to appoint female vicars and bishops can be among the following:

that Paul's request to Timothy was actually referring to women exercising their authority over their husband and unbalancing the marital unit, not about whether women can be given titles of leadership;
that it may have been a cultural norm at the time for women to exercise self-restraint, and the lack of it was bringing embarrassment on the Christian community in front of the unbelievers instead of them functioning as a light to the world;
that there may be certain laws in the Bible which are based on customs which become less relevant as times change, or when perfection sets in (such as the eating of certain animals);
that there are already examples of female leaders in both the Old Testament (Deborah who was appointed as a leader over the people) and the New Testament (Priscilla, wife of Aquila, whom Paul himself called his "fellow worker[s] in Christ", and who helped teach Apollos with her husband in Acts 18:26).


What is the Little Office of Our Lady in connection to the Scapular Devotion? This is particularly confusing and the wikipedia entry is not helpful.  I've worn a scapular since going to World Youth Day in 2005, but I've never asked a priest to consecrate my devotion.  The reason is, I don't know what the "Little Office of Our Lady" is in connection with the Scapular, it appears to be both a psalter (a book that repeats a lot) or 3 Hail Marys to pray daily.

Hail Mary's I can handle, another prayer book would be a stretch and I'd rather just pray the Liturgy of the Hours.

In the Handbook of Prayers, which contains the rite of consecration, it says that the devotion requires devotees to pray the Little Office of Our Lady daily, but it doesn't specifically say what it is and I've heard priests say it's just 3 Hail Marys.  Some times these devotions let distracted laymen like myself off the hook easy, so maybe it's both.  But if I had a definite answer I'd be a happy dude.

The Brown Scapular devotion is one thing, and the Little Office of Our Lady another. To practise the Brown Scapular devotion, and benefit from Our Lady's magnificent promise, one must be enrolled in the Scapular by a priest and persevere in wearing it. On this website you will see the difference between the Scapular promise and the Sabbatine Privilege. It is with regard to the latter that the condition of praying the Little Office comes in as one of several possibilities, including abstaining from meat on Wednesdays, Fridays and Saturdays.

By far the most common way to gain the Sabbatine Privilege, however, is to have that condition commuted (changed) to praying the Holy Rosary daily - that is to say, the five decades we all should pray daily anyhow - by your confessor. So I hope that you will now become enrolled in the Brown Scapular without worrying about taking on the added burden of the Little Office.

God bless you, a Catholic Priest.


Is the highway mentioned in Isaiah a literal highway? Isaiah refers several times to a "highway" that will be built.  Particularly, in Isaiah 35:8-10 (NASB) he writes:

A highway will be there, a roadway,
And it will be called the Highway of Holiness.
The unclean will not travel on it,
But it will be for him who walks that way,
And fools will not wander on it.
No lion will be there,
Nor will any vicious beast go up on it;
These will not be found there.
But the redeemed will walk there,
And the ransomed of the LORD will return
And come with joyful shouting to Zion,
With everlasting joy upon their heads.
They will find gladness and joy,
And sorrow and sighing will flee away.

The commentary I'm reading assumed that this was a literal highway, but it seems like it could be a metaphor for Jesus, or perhaps Christianity:

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me." - John 14:6 (NASB)

Is this view supported by any scholarly work, and would a figurative interpretation of the highway fit poorly with other references to the highway by Isaiah?

From a Baptist perspective

We studied this in our Sunday School. In our studies we also assume it is a literal highway, that will exist but it is *also a figurative "picture" for walking with Christ in salvation.

Scripture contains many passages that are both literal and metaphorical. I'll stop at one example, though there are many: The priests in the Old Testament literally sacrificed animals, and we believe that these served both as a temporary covering for sin in O.T. times, but they were also a picture (or preview) of the coming Savior and the sacrifice He would ultimately make.


In Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Lutheranism, what are the main explanations on the matter of why Jesus Christ needed to be baptized? What are the main explanations on the matter of why Jesus Christ needed to be baptized in Catholicism, in Eastern Orthodoxy, and in Lutheranism?

As far as I understand, baptism in the above-mentioned traditions is meant to be performed on fallen and sinful humans. So why did it need to be performed on Jesus Christ then?

Well, I am not catholic, but there seem to be a question that fascinated and perplexed many of the early Church fathers.

Justin Martyr addressed the baptism of Jesus, as a sign that He is manifested as the Christ, a sign for the Church first, and then the world.

  Now, we know that he did not go to the river because He stood in need
  of baptism, or of the descent of the Spirit like a dove; even as He
  submitted to be born and to be crucified, not because He needed such
  things, but because of the human race, which from Adam had fallen
  under the power of death and the guile of the serpent, and each one of
  which had committed personal transgression.... For it was not His entrance
  into Jerusalem sitting on an ass, which we have showed was prophesied, that
  empowered Him to be Christ, but it furnished men with a proof that He
  is the Christ; just as it was necessary in the time of John that men
  have proof, that they might know who is Christ.

According to Irenaeus, the baptism made Jesus the Christ since the Spirit anointing equipped him for the messianic ministry. Adelin Rousseau and Louis Doutreleau, sum up the meaning, as "On the one hand, having assumed flesh, the eternal Word has become 'Jesus'; on the other hand, having been anointed by the Father by means of the Spirit, the incarnate Word or 'Jesus' has become the
'Christ' = the 'Anointed One". Basically, before the baptism Jesus was not functionally the Christ, since the human nature was not divinely equipped.

  ... the Word of God, who is Savior of all and who rules the earth and the heaven, who is Jesus—as we have demonstrated—who has taken flesh and has been anointed of the Spirit by the Father, has been made Jesus-Christ. (Adversus
  haereses)

Gregory seem to points out that Christ was baptized not for His sake but for ours, sanctifying the waters of baptism for all generations to come and manifesting the the Trinity through the Spirit who comes to rest on him in the form of a dove and the voice of the Father that resounds from heaven.

  Today He is baptized by John that He might cleanse him who was defiled, that He might bring the Spirit from above, and exalt man to heaven, that he who had fallen might be raised up and he who had cast him down might be put to shame.
  (On the Baptism of Christ)

Augustine [known for giving baptismal regeneration its strongest underpinning], states that "...Christ wished to be baptized in order by His example to lead us to baptism. And so, in order that He might lead us thereto more efficaciously, He wished to be baptized with a baptism which He clearly needed not, that men who needed it might approach unto it." .... "For which reason [the efficacy of Christ's baptism because the heaven opened], when Christ was baptized, heaven was opened, to show that in future, the heavenly power would sanctify baptism. (Summa Theologica, Volume 1)

Benedict XVI's "Homily on the Feast of the Baptism of Our Lord", seem to reiterate the same stance as the church fathers:

  “To inaugurate his public life and to anticipate the “Baptism” of his
  death, he who was without sin accepted to be numbered among sinners.
  He was “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John
  1:29). The Father proclaimed him to be “his beloved Son” (Matthew
  3:17) and the Spirit descended upon him. The baptism of Jesus is a
  prefiguring of our baptism (Compendium of the Catechism of the
  Catholic Church, n. 105).”

But, stresses on the humanity of Jesus and its identification with fallen human being, that is by virtue of being a human [albeit a fallen one], we needed the baptism:

  ... displays the path of abasement
  and humility that the Son of God freely chose in order to follow the
  Father’s plan, to be obedient to his will of love for man in all
  things, to the point of the sacrifice on the cross. Now an adult,
  Jesus initiates his public ministry, traveling to the Jordan river to
  receive a baptism of repentance and conversion from John. There occurs
  here something that might seem paradoxical in our eyes. Does Jesus
  need to repent and convert? Certainly not. And yet He who is without
  sin places Himself among sinners to be baptized, to perform this
  gesture of repentance; The Holy One of God joins with those who
  recognize their need of forgiveness and ask God for the gift of
  conversion, that is, the grace to return to him with all their heart,
  to be completely his. Jesus wishes to place Himself among sinners,
  making himself solidary with them, expressing God’s nearness. Jesus
  shows himself to be solidary with us, with our effort to convert, to
  leave our egoism behind, to turn from our sins, to tell us that if we
  accept him in our lives he is able to lift us back up and lead us to
  the heights of God the Father. And this solidarity of Jesus is not, so
  to say, a simple exercise of the mind and will. Jesus has truly
  immersed himself in our human condition, he lived it through and
  through, except for sin, and is able to understand weakness and
  frailty (Ibid.)


What are Mormons allowed to discuss about the temple, when not inside the temple? What are we allowed to discuss or ask questions about outside of the temple?  What things exactly are too sacred to discuss outside the temple, and which things can we talk fairly openly about?

From lds.org:

What can I say to others about my experience in the temple?
You can talk about what the interior of the temple looks like, and you can freely share the feelings you have in the temple. However, temple covenants and ordinances, including the words used, are too sacred to be discussed in detail outside the temple. By avoiding discussion of these sacred things outside the temple, we protect them from mocking, ridicule, or disrespect. Do not be casual when talking about your experiences in the temple.

For much more on the topic of temples, what is sacred, and how to treat sacred topics with respect, see the special edition of the Ensign magazine, October 2010 issue. For pictures, try a PDF copy of the issue.
In particular, see The Holy Temple by President Boyd K. Packer. He says:

The ordinances and ceremonies of the temple are simple. They are beautiful. They are sacred. They are kept confidential lest they be given to those who are unprepared. Curiosity is not a preparation. Deep interest itself is not a preparation. Preparation for the ordinances includes preliminary steps: faith, repentance, baptism, confirmation, worthiness, a maturity and dignity worthy of one who comes invited as a guest into the house of the Lord.


What was Isaac Newton's view of the Trinity? The Trinity is a complex topic and I know Isaac Newton studied deep into it, and that his views were somewhat contrary to mainstream doctrines taught today. So I was curious what his view is, and what is different about it from mainstream Protestant and Catholic theology.

John Byl, in his article "Newton and the Trinity", paints a clear picture that Newton was non-trinitarian. Newton's published works do not contain clear statements of this nature. In his private notebooks however, some of which were not examined completely until the mid 20th century, Newton committed a significant amount of effort to criticizing the Church's trinitarian doctrines. Byl writes:

  In one notebook it is clear that, already in the early 1670's, Newton was absorbed by the doctrine of the Trinity. On this topic he studied extensively not only the Bible, but also much of the Church Fathers. Newton traced the doctrine of the trinity back to Athanasius (298- 373); he became convinced that before Athanasius the Church had no trinitarian doctrine. In the early 4th century Athanasius was opposed by Arius (256-336), who affirmed that God the Father had primacy over Christ. In 325 the Council of Nicea condemned as heretical the views of Arius. Thus, as viewed by Newton, Athanasius triumphed over Arius in imposing the false doctrine of the trinity on Christianity.

  Newton further asserted that, in order to support trinitarianism, the Church deliberately corrupted the Bible by modifying crucial texts. For example, Newton claimed that the well-known words of I John 5:7 (”there are three that bear record in heaven, the father, the Word and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one”) were not in the original, pre-4th century Bible (Newton, it seems, was not a King James only man). Newton writes that “the Fathers…preferred to desert the Scriptures than not to condemn Arius”. Soon thereafter a universal corruption of Christianity followed the central corruption of doctrine: in the 4th century trinitarianism fouled every element of Christianity.

  Newton's anti-trinitarianism is evident also in his interpretation of Revelation. According to Newton, the seventh seal began in the year 380, when trinitarianism was officially ratified at the Council of Constantinople. The great apostasy was not Romanism, but trinitarianism, “the false infernal religion”, to quote Newton's own words.

Economist John Maynard Keynes obtained a significant amount of Newton's unpublished works in 1936 due to his interest in Newton's alchemical (occult) studies. Newton wrote vastly on alchemy, which should be considered a philosophy in it's own right and not merely a proto-science. As a proto-science, it is more akin to a proto-psychology than a proto-chemistry, as is the common opinion (I'm happy to elucidate in chat or in the comments), and Newton was interested in the considerable discussion in the alchemical corpus on God, the human soul, and matter, as Newton, even in his published works, considered his work on physics to be an expression of worship toward the Creator and a revelation of his divine arcitecture. Newton is considered by many biographers to have been a deist, and not necessarily Christian, and so  Newton's writings on Christianity should be considered in alchemical or deist context and not primarily in that of Christianity. Indeed, his commentary on Christian doctrine appears to be predominantly critical.

Among the previously unpublished work obtained by Keynes is a list of twelve points stated by Newton on the relation between the Father, Son, and Spirit. Chief differences of Newton's perspective in comparison with both Catholic and Protestant doctrine is that Christ is not human or endowed with a human soul (8), and that the relationship between the persons of the trinity is like that of the saints, that they are distinct beings in agreement with one another (12). In the list, Newton made an entry for a 13th point which he left blank.

  The word God is nowhere in the scriptures used to signify more than one of the three persons at once.
  The word God put absolutely without restriction to the Son or Holy Ghost doth always signify the Father from one end of the scriptures to the other.
  Whenever it is said in the scriptures that there is but one God, it is meant the Father.
  When, after some heretics had taken Christ for a mere man and others for the supreme God, St John in his Gospel endeavoured to state his nature so that men might have from thence a right apprehension of him and avoid those heresies and to that end calls him the word or logos: we must suppose that he intended that term in the sense that it was taken in the world before he used it when in like manner applied to an intelligent being. For if the Apostles had not used words as they found them how could they expect to have been rightly understood. Now the term logos before St John wrote, was generally used in the sense of the Platonists, when applied to an intelligent being and the Arians understood it in the same sense, and therefore theirs is the true sense of St John.
  The Son in several places confesseth his dependence on the will of the Father.
  The Son confesseth the Father greater, then calls him his God etc.
  The Son acknowledgeth the original prescience of all future things to be in the Father only.
  There is nowhere mention of a human soul in our Saviour besides the word, by the meditation of which the word should be incarnate. But the word itself was made flesh and took upon him the form of a servant.
  It was the son of God which He sent into the world and not a human soul that suffered for us. If there had been such a human soul in our Saviour, it would have been a thing of too great consequence to have been wholly omitted by the Apostles.
  It is a proper epithet of the Father to be called almighty. For by God almighty we always understand the Father. Yet this is not to limit the power of the Son. For he doth whatsoever he seeth the Father do; but to acknowledge that all power is originally in the Father and that the Son hath power in him but what he derives from the Father, for he professes that of himself he can do nothing.
  The Son in all things submits his will to the will of the Father, which could be unreasonable if he were equal to the Father.
  The union between him and the Father he interprets to be like that of the saints with one another. That is in agreement of will and counsel.

Some points, esp. 5, 6, and 11, support the claim that Newton was a subordinationist, and the Roman Catholic Church and many protestant denominations strictly reject that teaching. Newton also names the Arians as having a proper notion of the Logos in point 4, while Arianism is also considered heretical by The Roman Catholic Church and many protestant denominations. Byl summarizes Newton's heretical points:

  He explicitly declares only the Father to be supreme; the Son is a separate being, different from the Father both in substance and in nature; Christ is not truly God but is the so-called Word and Wisdom made flesh, divine to be sure, but only so far as divinity is communicated by the Father.

Even so, what Newton actually believed is disputed among those who study his life and writings. While Keynan maintains that he was an Arian and John Byl counts him as a non-trinitarian, James Hanson concludes in a 1996 article in Biblical Astronomer that Newton's positions are not far from the modern mainstream:

  In my reading of what Newton himself wrote, and by analyzing the claims of his biographer detractors, I find Newton to be a Bible-believing Christian who would be comfortable attending my small semi-rural blue-collar Baptist church.


Has a parable originally used by Jesus been left out of Luke 14? (Luke 14:7-11, RSVCE)
  Now he told a parable to those who were invited, when he marked how they chose the places of honor, saying to them,  “When you are invited by any one to a marriage feast, do not sit down in a place of honor, lest a more eminent man than you be invited by him;  and he who invited you both will come, and say to you, ‘Give place to this man,’ and then you will begin with shame to take the lowest place.  But when you are invited, go and sit in the lowest place, so that when your host comes he may say to you, ‘Friend, go up higher’; then you will be honored in the presence of all who sit at table with you.  For every one who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

One finds here no parable or  story illustrating the importance of humility , but rather plain teaching.  In common parlance, a parable is a short allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson, or a statement or comment that conveys a meaning indirectly by the use of comparison, analogy, or the like. That puts one in doubt as to whether a parable which Jesus in deed used, has somehow been taken away from Luke 14.
My question is: have there any official studies, say, from the side of Catholic Church, undertaken to establish the possibility of such an omission ?

I think you might be loading a 21st century definition of the English word "parable" onto a 1st century Greek word.

παραβολή [parabole] is also translated "proverb", "figure", "saying", and "teaching" elsewhere in the New Testament, as well as in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament.

Examples:

  Luke 4:23 (RSVCE)

    And He said to them, “Doubtless you will quote to me this proverb [Gr. παραβολή], ‘Physician, heal yourself; what we have heard you did at
    Capernaum, do
    here also in your own country.’”

  Hebrews 9:8–9 (RSVCE)

  By this the Holy Spirit indicates that the way into the sanctuary is not yet opened as long as the outer tent is still standing (which is
  symbolic for [lit. a figure - Gr. παραβολή - of] the present age).

  Sirach 1:25 (RSVCE)

    In the treasuries of wisdom are wise sayings [Gr. παραβολή],   but
    godliness is an abomination to a sinner.


What is the basis that many mainstream Christian groups justify labeling groups like the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses as Non Christians? If there is no clear definition stemming from the Bible of what makes one a Christian, how does mainstream Christianity justify labeling groups like the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses as Non Christians?

Members from both groups seem to take a more active role in spreading Christ's message of salvation than do the most rooted mainstream Christian church members, based off of their missionary efforts even though some of their doctrines do not conform to the norms as held by most Christians. There is evidence enough to come to their doctrinal conclusions, even if we disagree with them.

So is non normative theology enough for mainstream Christianity to label others as non-Christian?

Before we start to answer this, a little history is needed. Both the Latter-Day Saints and Jehovah's Witnesses are Restorationist churches. That means that they were founded on the belief that all the other churches in the world had ceased to hold to the whole correct Christian doctrine, and that a direct revelation from God to the founders caused them to start an entirely new church, and to separate themselves from the 'corrupt' churches that were then in existence (yes, 'corrupt' was the word they used at the time. I'm aware it has a technical meaning that isn't the same as 'dishonest', but it's not very polite even in its technical meaning, which is essentially of a church that has stopped following God). Today both will attempt to convert members of other denominations to their own faith, and insist that people baptized in other Christian denominations are rebaptized to become members of their sects. Cooperation of any kind between Mormons and mainstream churches is extremely rare (compared with cooperation between other denominations), and the non-mainstream sects are at least as assiduous in rejecting it as the mainstream churches.

So in short, both Mormons and JWs stated for themselves that they are a completely different faith from the mainstream church, and continue to act in that way towards others.

Mormons hold to an additional revelation and additional scriptures, belief in which they consider essential to their own faith, and which are not accepted by other churches and in many cases contradict the tenets of other churches. JWs use a unique Bible translation which they hold to be authoritative and which disagrees in many places with all other translations. Both hold to unique doctrines, particularly about the person of Jesus,  which differ fundamentally from what mainstream churches believe and which they consider to be a non-negotiable part of their faith.

Given this, it is perhaps unsurprising that mainstream churches find it hard to accept churches which do not accept them as valid Christians. However this is by no means a fixed rule. Some denominations do accept Mormons and JWs as a valid form of Christianity.


Is illegal downloading a sin? There are several places where the Bible says that stealing is a sin.

  Exodus 20,15 (KJV)
  Thou shalt not steal.

But is downloading software content like games, music, or films illegally (i.e. you don't pay for it while you should) a sin too?
Does it count as stealing?
Can we tell exactly that this or that counts as stealing or does it depend on the situation?

I know that physically nothing is stolen, and the creator do not lose anything, but in the creators purse there will be less money. People would be using the result of his work and he wouldn't get rewarded, while maybe this is his main source of income. Also the downloader enjoys something that he hasn't paid for.
Do we really count something as stealing if the harmed person/company loses something? Doesn't the loss of income count as a loss?

On the other side, it is easy to tell that this is a sin, but then look to the people of earth. Almost everybody using some kind of illegal content (even faithful Christians). Lots of people say that they can't afford it, while the software is essential to them.

Let there be no mistake: illegal downloading is not stealing. It is infringement, which is something that can be superficially similar to stealing when done in certain ways (like downloading), but in the end is not quite the same thing. Calling illegal downloading "theft" and leaving it there is wrong and distorts the issue.

However, it is also not correct to say that there is no harm to the owner or creator when you infringe their work. The harm may be small or much less than theft, but it is still real. Trespassing might be a closer analogy, but that's not quite right either... the reality is somewhere in between the two. There is something like "theft", because you have taken something that does not belong to you, but legally it's more like trespassing, because you have not deprived the owner of any property, in the same sense that if you trespass you can be said to have "stolen" time and use of someone else's land, but did not steal the land itself.

Mostly, though, I think it's important here to think about the harm to yourself. Because there is harm to the creator of the work, and because illegal downloading is, well, illegal, you cannot hope to participate in this activity without creating serious harm to your own conscience. If you do participate in this activity and don't feel any guilt, it is because your conscience is already damaged.

In other words, even setting aside the theft issue, illegal downloading is most definitely sinful. It is harmful to your conscious, it is harmful to the creator and copyright owner, and it violates the law of the land. In addition to the Romans 13 verse used elsewhere by other answers here, I am reminded of Jesus answer to whether we should pay taxes. He said that we should give to Cesar what is Cesar's, and to God what is God's, implying that we must respect the government and it's laws, even when those laws might not make sense to us. I believe the Golden Rule of Matthew 7 also plays a part here. If you were a publisher, you would want others to respect your copyright and whatever licensing terms you chose.


Were the councils of the 4th and 5th centuries primarily to deal with Apocryphal writings? Were the Apocryphal writings the primary motivation behind the cannons and councils of the 4th and 5th centuries or were there other motivations? Did the ancient church leaders cite their reasons for making the canons?

I'm not sure which specific councils you're referring to, but for the sake of this answer I'll assume it's the first four ecumenical councils. The Apocryphal writings were not the primary focus of these councils; doctrinal concerns were (the Trinitarian and Christological heresies). Here is a brief summary of these councils:

Nicaea I (325 CE): Summoned primarily to deal with the Arian heresy, clarifying the relationship between God the Father and God the Son. A creed was developed that became the basis of the later Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. The date of Pascha (Easter) was also fixed at this council.
Constantinople I (381 CE): Arianism and semi-Arianism were still problems for the Church, so the full Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed was formulated to refute these heresies (and some others such as those of Sabellius, Apollinarus, and Macedonius) and to clarify the relationship of the Holy Spirit in the Trinity.
Ephesus I (431 CE): This council condemned Nestorianism and Pelagianism. Jesus Christ was defined as the Incarnate Word of God and the Virgin Mary as the Theotokos.
Chalcedon I (451 CE): This council condemned the heresy of Monophysitism and clarified Jesus Christ as perfect God and perfect man in one person (ὑπόστασις, hypostasis), which is referred to as the Hypostatic Union.

Concerning the Apocryphal writings, many early Christians considered them to be scripture due to their inclusion in the Septuagint, with the notable exception of Jerome. The lists of books considered "canonical" by many groups today were drawn up very early (fourth century and onward), so there was little dispute (with the exception of the Apocryphal works) when official canons were drawn up in the 16th and 17th centuries.1

So in response to your question, the answer is no, the councils of the 4th and 5th centuries did not primarily deal with Apocryphal writings.

1 cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Christian_biblical_canon


Does the Westminster Confession affirm or deny Luther's predilection for Paul's writings? My understanding is that the Westminster Confession is the official defining document of "Reformed theology". That is, if someone is "Reformed" then they agree completely or almost completely with the WC. So my question is about Reformed theology as is defined in the WC.

Also my understanding is that the WC purports to represent the beliefs of the "Reformers" which would include Martin Luther.

My understanding is also that in Reformed theology the entire soteriology of the scriptures are unified in boiling down to two covenants, one of "grace" and one of "works". This means that while Exodus and Romans appear different they are actually only superficially different because at their chewy center they describe the same covenant.

But my understanding of Luther's view was that Paul's gospel was unique and different even from that of the 12. For example, he called James' epistle and "epistle of straw" because it did not share the same core as Paul's letters did. And Luther arranged the NT letters in order based on how consistent they were with Paul.

I'm relating all this because I may be mistaken on some of these points so I wanted to clarify what my impressions are so they can be clarified and that might obviate my question.

But here's my question. Am I correct that the Reformed view of the scriptures is that they actually teach the same gospel in Exodus, Romans and James? Or do they instead affirm Luther's view that Paul's gospel is new and different and not merely superficially different from that of Exodus and James?

First of all, it's important to recognize that "Reformed theology" does not mean "theology of the reformers" – the terminology is a bit confusing, which is why the tradition is often referred to as Calvinism, even though Calvin was just one of many theologians in this tradition.  Other commonly cited "Reformed" confessions are the Belgic Confession and the 1689 Baptist Confession.
We can find the answer to your question in the Westminster Confession itself, chapter 7, "Of God's Covenant with Man."  Paragraphs 2 and 3 describe the "covenant of works" (or "covenant of life") that was made with Adam, and the "covenant of grace," which God instituted following Adam's failure to keep the first covenant.
The confession describes the covenant of grace as follows:

The Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein He freely offers unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life His Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe. (§3)

Some might assume that the reference to Jesus Christ means that this covenant only went into effect after Jesus's sacrifice, but that's not what is meant.  Instead, the covenant of grace has been in place ever since Adam's fall, but has manifested itself in different ways:

This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the Gospel: under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the Old Testament. (§5)

So "the time of the law" (the Old Testament) is still part of the "covenant of grace," and God's people of that time were saved by Jesus, even though he had not yet come.  But the manifestation of the covenant during that time was substantially different from "the time of the Gospel":

Under the Gospel, when Christ, the substance, was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper: which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory, yet, in them, it is held forth in more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the New Testament. There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations. (§6)

Luther's view of all this is a matter of some debate.  It's generally accepted, however, that he spoke less of the idea of "covenant" than Reformed theologians did, and that he focused more on a Law/Gospel distinction that was more closely associated with the division between the Old and New Testaments (or between Moses and Christ), not between a "covenant of works" and "covenant of grace."
These distinctions are seen in Chapter 5 of the Formula of Concord, written by Lutherans a generation after Luther:

We believe, teach, and confess that the distinction between the Law and the Gospel is to be maintained in the Church with great diligence as an especially brilliant light, by which, according to the admonition of St. Paul, the Word of God is rightly divided. (§1)
Everything that reproves sin is, and belongs to, the preaching of the Law. (§3)
The Gospel is properly such a doctrine as teaches what man who has not observed the Law, and therefore is condemned by it, is to believe, namely, that Christ has expiated and made satisfaction for all sins, and has obtained and acquired for him, without any merit of his [no merit of the sinner intervening], forgiveness of sins, righteousness that avails before God, and eternal life. (§4)

There are certainly significant differences between the Lutheran and Reformed views of the covenant, but some have argued that the Lutheran Law/Gospel distinction is more a matter of differing emphasis than major disagreement.  Still, these quotes make it clear that there are differences in how the two traditions approach the Law and the Old Testament.


Do Jehovah's Witnesses believe only they will be saved after their organization came into existence? Are there any statements in JW literature that indicate that they do not dogmatically believe that they are the only channel of God's truth and direction today, or that today, one does not have to be a JW to be saved? (By salvation I mean being reconciled to God, not merely being resuscitated to be given a chance to be taught by a JW in the millennium if they didn't receive that chance before they died.)

My emphasis on the word today is because JWs believe prior to the existence of their organization, people could obviously be saved without becoming a JW, or will be given that opportunity in the millennium. However, what about after their organization came into existence?

A JW might attempt to diplomatically respond that they are not to judge who will be saved (as I have seen from other responses from JWs on this forum). This is, of course, techically a correct response, yet begs the question, as JWs implicitly seem to believe a fellow JW will be saved if he stays loyal and obedient to their organization (which I assume to a JW this is equivalent to being obedient to God) throughout all eschatological trials such as Armageddon, whereas they believe others need to become JWs in order to be saved. However, my understanding of their beliefs might be inaccurate.

I'm looking for official statements from JW literature.

The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society was founded in 1886 by Charles Russell.  He and his followers were known as Bible Students and “Russellites” until 1931 when the second President, Joseph Rutherford, renamed the organisation as “Jehovah’s Witnesses.”  Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that true religion became corrupted after the first century, and especially when the Catholic Church came to power.  Between then and 1886 they claim there have only been a very small number of true Christians.  Then Jesus chose them as his earthly organisation in 1919:

  1 April 2007 Watchtower, p.22: “‘On arriving’ to inspect the ‘slave’ in 1918, Christ found a spirit-anointed remnant of faithful disciples who since 1879 had been using this journal [the Watchtower] and other Bible-based publications to provide spiritual ‘food at the proper time.’ He acknowledged them as his collective instrument, or ‘slave,’ and in 1919 entrusted them with the management of all his earthly belongings.”

  February 2017 Study Watchtower article: Who Is Leading God’s People Today? “8. In the late 19th century, Charles Taze Russell and some of his associates endeavored to re-establish true Christian worship...   10. In 1919, three years after Brother Russell’s death, Jesus appointed “the faithful and discreet slave.” For what purpose? To give his domestics “food at the proper time.” (Matt. 24:45)”

Below are quotations from their own publications on who will survive Armageddon:

  15 February 1983 Watchtower, pp 12-13, article Four Requirements for Salvation:  “Jehovah is using only one organization today to accomplish his will. To receive everlasting life in the earthly Paradise we must identify that organization and serve God as part of it.”

  Watchtower March 1, 1985 p 14: “Only Christian witnesses of Jehovah who successfully pass this test will survive and come forth like fire-refined gold for God’s use in his precious new order.”

  Watchtower September 1, 1989 p 19: "Only Jehovah's Witnesses, those of the anointed remnant and the "great crowd," as a united organization under the protection of the Supreme Organizer, have any Scriptural hope of surviving the impending end of this doomed system dominated by Satan the Devil."
  Watchtower September 15, 1993 p 22: “But if we were to draw away from Jehovah’s organization, there would be no place else to go for salvation and true joy.”

  Watchtower May 15, 2006: "During the final period of the ancient world that perished in the Flood, Noah was a faithful preacher of righteousness. (2 Peter 2:5) In these last days of the present system of things, Jehovah's people are making known God's righteous standards and are declaring good news about the possibility of surviving into the new world. (2 Peter 3:9-13) Just as Noah and his God-fearing family were preserved in the ark, survival of individuals today depends on their faith and their loyal association with the earthly part of Jehovah's universal organization."

  Watchtower December 15, 2007: "But Jehovah's servants already belong to the only organization that will survive the end of this wicked system of things."

  March 2016 Watchtower article Jehovah Guides His People in the Way of Life:
  “Indeed, to keep receiving God’s blessing, we need to pay attention to all the directions provided through the Christian congregation. Having an obedient spirit now will help us to follow directions during the “great tribulation,” which will eliminate Satan’s entire evil system.  Thereafter, we will need new directions for new world living on an earth totally free of any satanic influence.”

  November 2016 Study Watchtower article They Broke Free From False Religion: “In 1919, a “faithful and discreet slave” was appointed to provide spiritual food to the household of faith. (Matt. 24:45) God’s people were now free of the influence of Babylon the Great.”

Jehovah’s Witnesses also believe the Antichrist is made up of Trinitarian churches "promoting the use of Bible translations that omit God's personal name, Jehovah, from the text."  June 2015 Watchtower article Who is the Antichrist?   http://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/wp20150601/who-is-the-antichrist/

Today, Jehovah’s Witnesses believe only they will survive Armageddon.   They view every Christian denomination (whether Catholic or Protestant) as part of Babylon the Great, the harlot of Revelation, soon to be destroyed.  However, they never say that to non-Witnesses when they go from house to house.  They are careful to promote the idea of living forever on a paradise earth after Armageddon.  I am unaware of any official statements that indicate they do not dogmatically believe that they are the only channel of God's truth and direction today, or that today, one does not have to be a Jehovah’s Witness to be saved.  Of course, such statements may exist andif they do, I would be pleased to read them.