Why is Jesus never portrayed as a child or as a teenager? Most traditional paintings of Jesus portray him either as an infant or as an adult. However I don't believe any classical authors ever portray Jesus as a child, teenager or a young man.

What is the reason behind this, from the point of view of Christianity? I assume most religious paintings are commissioned by the church so they have a say in how Jesus is supposed to be portrayed.

Surely the main reason Christ is very rarely depicted in this way is simply because there is so little source material for Jesus as a child or young man (I've omitted "teenager" simply because I'm not convinced this was even a concept in classical times).

Our primary source for the life of Jesus is the gospels, and by chapter count, 95.2% of the gospel narrative is focused entirely on times when Jesus is a grown man. The gospels of Mark and John don't even have Jesus' birth or childhood.

If we're feeling generous to Jesus' young-boyhood, we can assign the remaining 5% as such - 3.3% Jesus' birth or prior, 1.5% Jesus as a young boy. Bear in mind though, that my 1.5% includes Matthew 2 (The visit of the wise men). My understanding is that this took place when Jesus was a young boy, although culturally we tend to tell this as part of the Nativity story, and people often assume he was a baby. If this assumption were correct, then all of a sudden Jesus' boyhood only occupies 0.3% of the gospels, with Jesus birth and prior occupying 4.5%.

The only verses in the Bible which are explicitly anything to do with Jesus' boyhood are Luke 2:41-55, the story of "The Boy Jesus in the Temple". There are no other primary sources still available to us which give an actual depiction of what Jesus was like as a child. Given that most of the traditional art around Jesus is focused around some sort of material in the primary source, it seems pretty unreasonable to expect that there would be anything like the same number of paintings of Jesus as a child/young adult, than there are of Jesus as an adult/baby.

To get the statistics above, I used the following figures:

Chapters which refer to Jesus as a grown man: 85

(Matt 3 - 28, Mark 1 - 16, Luke 3 - 24, John 1 - 21)
some of these don't explicitly refer to Jesus as a grown man, they are simply after the chapters which finish referring to Jesus as a child. You could possibly have a fourth category of "chapters which don't refer to Jesus at all", but this wouldn't take anything away from the point that chapters in which Jesus is described as a child are a tiny minority.

Chapters which refer to Jesus as an infant or prior to Jesus' birth (Wise men visited in Jesus' childhood): 2.75

(Matt 1, Luke 1-2:40)

Chapters which refer to Jesus as a child (Wise men visited in Jesus' childhood): 1.25

(Matt 2, Luke 2:41-55)

Chapters which refer to Jesus as an infant or prior to Jesus' birth (Wise men visited in Jesus' infancy/standard nativity story): 3.75

(Matt 1-2, Luke 1-2:40)

Chapters which refer to Jesus as a child (standard nativity - these are the only verses which explicitly describe Jesus as a child): 0.25

(Luke 2:41-55)


Do we know who the descendants of Mary mother of Jesus were? So I am not asking about Mary and Joseph's genealogy. I am asking about their children's descendants.  So Jesus's siblings' children, their children's children, etc.  Whenever I search for this, I only receive results about their family history genealogy.  So essentially, what happened to Jesus's nieces and nephews?

Answered by my elder Rick Calvert from Hope Christian Church:

Cody,

The only historical genealogical information of Mary’s family after the birth of Christ are the names of her four other sons.

Scripture states they were named: Joseph, James, Jude, and Simon. These were the half-brothers of Jesus. Half-brothers because Joseph was only the paternal father of Jesus, he was not the material father of Jesus, the Spirit of God was.

The last three of Mary’s son’s mentioned are not to be confused with those who were disciples of Jesus by the same name.

Here are some passages where the other sons of Mary by Joseph are mentioned (Mt. 12:46; 13:55; Mk. 6:3; John 2:12; 7:3, 5, 10; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5; Gal. 1:19).

Also, keep in mind that all of the Jewish genealogies dating from Adam to Christ were burned and destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D. with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish Temple. The purpose of the genealogical records preserved in Scripture was to identify the Messiah when He came, which they fulfilled (Mt. 1:1-17; Lk. 3:23-38), thus, there was no reason for their preservation any longer and God let them be destroyed by the Romans in the late first century. Therefore, no person today can actually prove they are Jewish, nor can they prove their Hebrew tribal genealogy. This also implies that no one can trace their ancestry back to Mary, Joseph, or Jesus, most likely by God’s design.

Warm Regards,
Rick


Are there unforgivable sins? Jesus came and died for our sins so that we may be forgiven and have salvation.

But Matthew 12:32 (NIV) says there is at least one thing to prevent being forgiven.

  32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

Are there unforgivable actions that would clash with Jesus' sacrifice (eg: an unbeliever 'speaks against the Holy Spirit', then later in life repents and turns to Christ.) Will that person be granted eternal life?

In the gospels Jesus speaks, as your question points out, of the unforgivable sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.  Indeed it's true that blaspheming the Spirit of God is a grave sin. It's important to keep in mind that he was speaking not to his disciples or to the crowds following him, but to the Pharisees who accused him saying "It is only by Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons, that this fellow casts out the demons."  Those Pharisees did not say what they said by carelessness or momentary anger. They said it intentionally and deliberately, in order to entrap Jesus.  And his response ("unforgivable sin") was an explanation of the spiritual consequences of their actions.  I think he was inviting them to repent.  But what do I know?

Sisters and brothers, for pastoral reasons I urge you to be very VERY careful with speech about this unforgivable sin.  There are a surprising number of people in this broken world of ours who have become convinced that they have committed this sin and are beyond redemption.

The ones I have spoken to are seriously seeking some kind of reconciliation, but have become convinced they're not worth it.  Some are struggling with intrusive thoughts of personal unworthiness, and others are struggling to repent of past angry thoughts or words.   Not one of these people seeking redemption from God can possibly be guilty of this sin of blasphemy against the Spirit:  it is that same Spirit that inhabits their hearts and turns them to seek God.  Jesus did not turn away ANYONE who sincerely sought healing or repentance.

So, let's you and I leave all judgement about this sin to God, OK? Please? For the life of the world?


What are the requirements for joining the Catholic church as an adult? What are the requirements for joining the Catholic church as an adult?

I'm interested in all the requirements, including whether a previously baptized Protestant would be required to (or forbidden from?) being re-baptized as a Catholic.

This looks like a job for... Canon Law 869

Can.  869 §1. If there is a doubt whether a person has been baptized or whether baptism was conferred validly and the doubt remains after a serious investigation, baptism is to be conferred conditionally.
§2. Those baptized in a non-Catholic ecclesial community must not be baptized conditionally unless, after an examination of the matter and the form of the words used in the conferral of baptism and a consideration of the intention of the baptized adult and the minister of the baptism, a serious reason exists to doubt the validity of the baptism.

The gist of it is, there's no need for re-baptism, being baptized by anyone in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is sufficient.
And in time of need, it is valid for anyone to baptize anyone else.  For instance, if you were in a really bad accident and I came upon you and said, "boy, you look pretty rough are you ready to meet the Lord" and you said, "Lord who?" and I, while dressing the wounds of your mangled body, managed to convince you of the truths of the Catholic Church and you decided that you wanted to die a Christian, I could baptize you and even if you managed to live, you wouldn't need to be re-baptized.

The requirements for joining the Church are different for unbaptized folks than for baptized.  Either way, the RCIA process is followed and culminates with all three sacraments of initiation  Baptism, Eucharist and Confirmation (with the exception of Baptism for the already Baptized) .
The liturgical part of the process can be found in this book I bought it and read through it because I'd like my dad to become Catholic, but it's not much help really.
What one would need to do in order to become convert to Catholicism, would be largely up to the priest.  I have a friend who is a convert who showed up on a priests doorstep 30 some years ago and the priest gave him one-on-one instruction until he joined the church. But others, Lutherans in particular, say "all the priest said to do was make a general confession", other parishes have RCIA programs led by lay ministers similar to Catechetical instruction for children leading up to their confirmation.


Which Apocrypha are part of the Catholic and the Orthodox traditions and which are not? Why? How do the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches differentiate between which Apocrypha are part of their holy tradition and which are not?

For example, the story of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary is not contained in any books of the Bible and is rather coming from the early Apocrypha: "The Protevangelium of James".

However, as far as I know, at least in the Orthodox Church this story is absolutely believed upon and its validity is never questioned. The Orthodox definitely consider this story to be a part of their tradition. On the other hand, there are many Apocrypha that describe exactly the same stories that are described in the New Testaments, however, those Apocrypha are just considered Apocrypha, their authorship and spiritual validity are held under question, and they are not considered by the Orthodox to be the part of their tradition.

Eastern Orthodox Old Testament "Apocrypha"

In the Eastern Orthodox tradition, the Old Testament Apocrypha comprises books such as the Assumption of Moses, Ascension of Isaiah, Apocalypse of Elijah, Book of Enoch, and the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs.  Other traditions sometimes refer to these books as apocrypha and/or pseudoepigrapha.

None of the these books were included in the Old Testament canon confirmed by the 7th Ecumenical Council in 787, nor in any of the preceding related councils (i.e. Council of Carthage in 397, Council of Trullo in 692).  In some other Orthodox traditions that broke away after the 3rd and 4th Ecumenical Councils (e.g. Ethiopean/Eritrean), the Book of Enoch is also included in the Old Testament and not considered as being part of the Old Testament Apocrypha.

Eastern Orthodox New Testament "Apocrypha"

In the Eastern Orthodox tradition again, the New Testament Apocrypha includes the Didache, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Greek Gospel of the Egyptians, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the First Epistle of Clement, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Gospel of Judas, and the Protoevangelium of James.

Some of the above books (e.g. Gospel of Thomas) were considered truly spurious and heretical (usually gnostic) and were never considered as part of the canon by the Church of the 7 Ecumenical Councils.

Some of the books were included in some manuscripts we have of the New Testament used in the early Church (e.g. Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus - the two principal witnesses behind the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament text).  These include Clement, Barnabas, and Hermas.  Although eventually excluded form the canon, they were not considered heretical and to this day are part of the written tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Church.  Other Orthodox traditions (e.g. Ethiopean/Eritrean) continue to include some of these books (e.g. Clement) in their New Testament canon to this day.

Still others were never included in any New Testament compilation, but neither are they considered heretical.  These include the Didache and the Protoevangelium of James.

The Deuterocanon

Again in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, there are a number of Old Testament books which, though not part of the Hebrew canon, are included in the overall Old Testament canon.  Within the Eastern Orthodox Church, this set comprises:

I Esdras
The portion of II Esdras called the "Prayer of Manasseh"
Tobit
Judith
Portions of Esther
Wisdom of Solomon
Wisdom of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus)
Baruch
Epistle of Jeremiah
The portions of Daniel:

Song of the Three Children
Susanna
Bel and the Dragon

Psalm 151
I Maccabees
II Maccabees
III Maccabees

Although "apocrypha" is a Greek word, the Greek Church never referred to any of the above books as apocrypha, which has a derogatory connotation.  They are instead referred to as the deuterocanon (the second canon).  You will sometimes find the books referred to as "Apocrypha" in Orthodox sources nonetheless, but this is largely in deference to non-Orthodox terminology.

Jerome seems to have been the first to have labeled the deuterocanon as "apocrypha" in one of his introductions to his Latin translation of the Old Testament.  He seem to have objected to the inclusion of books outside the Hebrew canon in the Old Testament, but elsewhere he wrote that he felt he must defer to the Church. (He translated all of the deuterocanon and included it in his work.)

Timeline of the Deuterocanon/"Apocrypha"

An overview of how the Old Testament canon developed within the Church is discussed here and here.  A brief timeline would be:

Through 2nd century

There is not consensus on the content of the Old Testament.

Marcion (85-160) holds that that the entire Old Testament - Hebrew or otherwise - should be excluded from the Bible.
Melito of Sardis (d. 180) seems to exclude the deuterocanon from what he considers to be the Old Testament.
Deuterocanonical books found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Some early Church Fathers quote from the deuterocanon (e.g. Irenaeus, 130-202), others do not (e.g. Justin Martyr, 100-165).

3rd century

Origen includes Maccabees in the Old Testament canon he enumerates, although it is not clear which specific books.
Canon LXXXV of the Apostolic Canons include a number of deuterocanonical books in the Old Testament, including Sirach and Maccabees.  (These canons are of indeterminate origin.  Some scholars say they may date to the 2nd century, others to as late as the 5th or 6th, though.)

4th century

Hilary of Poitiers (310-368) includes Tobit and Judith in his enumeration of the Old Testament
Jerome (347-420) includes the entire deuterocanon in his Latin translation of the Old Testament (see above)
Virtually every Church Father quotes from the deuterocanon in their works, including John Chrysostom (349-407) (called by John MacArthur "the greatest preacher of the early Church").
The deuterocanon is bound up with the Bible codices of this period (see above)
Canon XXXIII of the 3rd Council of Carthage (397) includes the deuterocanon in the Old Testament

7th century

The Council of Trullo (692) ratifies and adopts many ancient local canons, including the Apostolic Canons.  Canon LXXXV of the Apostolic Canon includes the deuterocanon in the Old Testament (see above).

8th century

The 7th Ecumenical Council in Nicaea (787) ratifies and adopts the canons of both the 3rd Council of Carthage and the Council of Trullo.  This effectively establishes the following Old Testament canon for the entire Chalcedonian Church (i.e. the Church recognizing all 7 Ecumenical Councils to that date):

  Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy
  Joshua, Judges, Ruth
  1-4 Kings (referred to as 1/2 Samuel and 1/2 Kings in most Bibles today)
  1/2 Chronicles
  Job
  Psalms
  Proverbs
  Ecclesiastes
  Song of Songs
  Wisdom of Solomon
  Wisdom of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus)
  The books of the 12 Prophets: Hosea, Amos, Micah, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi
  Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel
  Tobit
  Judith
  Esther
  Ezra and Nehemiah
  1-3 Maccabees

"Great Schism" to the Reformation and beyond

The See of Rome and the other four Sees (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem) mutually separated in 1054 as the Pope of Rome and Patriarch of Constantinople mutually anathematize each other.

The Roman Catholic Council of Trent (c 1546) issues a decree (De Canonicis Scripturis) re-affirming the canon of the 3rd Council of Carthage, resulting in minimal changes to the canon established by the 7th Ecumenical Council.
The Geneva Bible is published in 1560 with the deuterocanon specified the 7th Ecumenical Council.
The King James Bible is published in 1611 with the deuterocanon specified by the 7th Ecumenical Council.
The Synod of Jerusalem (1692) amends the Old Testament canon to include the Prayer of Manasseh and a 4th Book of Maccabees.  Technically, the canons of this synod only apply to the Jerusalem Patriarchate.  To date, most Eastern Orthodox jurisdictions recognize the Prayer of Manasseh, but not 4 Maccabees.
The deuterocanon begins disappearing from editions of the King James Bible beginning in the early 19th century.


What does it mean when Archbishop Ganswein stated that Pope Benedict XVI expanded the Petrine Ministry? Archbishop Gänswein: "Benedict XVI Sees Resignation as Expanding Petrine Ministry".

In a speech reflecting on Pope Benedict XVI’s pontificate, Archbishop Georg Gänswein has confirmed the existence of a group who fought against Benedict’s election in 2005, but stressed that "Vatileaks" or other issues had "little or nothing" to do with his resignation in 2013.

Speaking at the presentation of a new book on Benedict’s pontificate at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome May 20, Archbishop Gänswein also said that Pope Francis and Benedict are not two popes “in competition” with one another, but represent one “expanded” Petrine Office with “an active member” and a “contemplative.”

Archbishop Gänswein, who doubles as the personal secretary of the Pope Emeritus and prefect of the Pontifical Household, said Benedict did not abandon the papacy like Pope Celestine V in the 13th century but rather sought to continue his Petrine Office in a more appropriate way given his frailty.

“Therefore, from 11 February 2013, the papal ministry is not the same as before,” he said. “It is and remains the foundation of the Catholic Church; and yet it is a foundation that Benedict XVI has profoundly and lastingly transformed during his exceptional pontificate.”

Archbishop Gänswein: Benedict XVI Sees Resignation as Expanding Petrine Ministry

It would seeems that Catholic Church really have Two Popes both functioning and having a universal power emanating from the Chair of Peter since 2013.

Does the Vatican II Church affirmed the view of Arch.Ganswein on the expanded Petrine Ministry?

In a lecture in Rome, Gaenswein said (according to a report in the National Catholic Register) that Benedict had “left the papal throne” but had not “abandoned [the] ministry” he had accepted “in April 2005,” such that, while there are not “two popes,” there is “de facto” an “expanded” [Petrine] ministry – with an active member [i.e., Pope Francis] and a “contemplative member [i.e. Pope Emeritus Benedict].” That is why, Gaenswein continued, Benedict XVI “has not given up his name or the white cassock,” and why “he has also not retired to a monastery in isolation but stays within the Vatican – as if he has taken only one step to the side to make room for his successor and a new stage in the history of the papacy.”

  Complete English Text: Archbishop Georg Gänswein’s ‘Expanded Petrine Office’ Speech: Benedict XVI’s personal secretary stresses there are not two popes, but “an active member and a contemplative member”.

Answer

Based on Arch.Gaenswein explanation he clarified that Pope Benedict XVI had abandoned the "papal throne" but had not abandoned the "ministry". And further stated it should not be understood as the Catholic Church having Two Popes but instead he used the term "expanded Petrine ministry".

From reading the text of Arch.Gaenswein it can be understood that Pope Benedict XVI has not abandoned the embraced responsibility of the Pope in praying for the Church the People of God towards it's mission on the salvation of souls.

Let's compare the personal testimony of Pope Benedict XVI in his speech addressed.

  BENEDICT XVI
  GENERAL AUDIENCE
  Saint Peter's Square
  Wednesday, 27 February 2013

  1.I feel that I bear everyone in prayer, in a present, God’s present, in which I gather together every one of my meetings, journeys and pastoral visits. In prayer I gather each and all, in order to entrust them to the Lord: that we might be filled with the knowledge of his will, with all spiritual wisdom and understanding, and that we might lead a life worthy of him and of his love, bearing fruit in every good work (cf. Col 1:9-10).

  2.In these last months I have felt my energies declining, and I have asked God insistently in prayer to grant me his light and to help me make the right decision, not for my own good, but for the good of the Church. I have taken this step with full awareness of its gravity and even its novelty, but with profound interior serenity. Loving the Church means also having the courage to make difficult, painful decisions, always looking to the good of the Church and not of oneself.

  3.Here, allow me to go back once again to 19 April 2005. The real gravity of the decision was also due to the fact that from that moment on I was engaged always and forever by the Lord. Always – anyone who accepts the Petrine ministry no longer has any privacy. He belongs always and completely to everyone, to the whole Church. In a manner of speaking, the private dimension of his life is completely eliminated. I was able to experience, and I experience it even now, that one receives one’s life precisely when one gives it away. Earlier I said that many people who love the Lord also love the Successor of Saint Peter and feel great affection for him; that the Pope truly has brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, throughout the world, and that he feels secure in the embrace of your communion; because he no longer belongs to himself, he belongs to all and all belong to him.

  4.The "always" is also a "for ever" – there can no longer be a return to the private sphere. My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this. I do not return to private life, to a life of travel, meetings, receptions, conferences, and so on. I am not abandoning the cross, but remaining in a new way at the side of the crucified Lord. I no longer bear the power of office for the governance of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter. Saint Benedict, whose name I bear as Pope, will be a great example for me in this. He showed us the way for a life which, whether active or passive, is completely given over to the work of God.

Here we can see that Pope Benedict XVI had affirmed what Arch.Gaenswein had stated that he did not renounce the "ministry of praying for the Church" and clearly stated by saying "I am not abondoning the cross.. but in the service of prayer I remain."

It is also worth noting that Pope Benedict XVI mentioned the he bear his chosen name Benedict who is well known as a Great Prayer Warrior or Great Intercessor.

To understand how great the power of intercession of St. Benedict is let us consider this story;

  In one story of Benedict's life, a poor man came to the monastery begging for a little oil. Although Benedict commanded that the oil be given, the cellarer refused -- because there was only a tiny bit of oil left. If the cellarer gave any oil as alms there would be none for the monastery. Angry at this distrust of God's providence, Benedict knelt down to pray. As he prayed a bubbling sound came from inside the oil jar. The monks watched in fascination as oil from God filled the vessel so completely that it overflowed, leaked out beneath the lid and finally pushed the cover off, cascading out on to the floor.

  In Benedictine prayer, our hearts are the vessel empty of thoughts and intellectual striving. All that remains is the trust in God's providence to fill us. Emptying ourselves this way brings God's abundant goodness bubbling up in our hearts, first with an inspiration or two, and finally overflowing our heart with contemplative love.

St. Benedict of Nursia

Pope Benedict XVI also addressed the following words that shed more light on the intention of his resignation and acknowledge the legitimacy of Pope Francis.

  The decision I have made, after much prayer, is the fruit of a serene trust in God’s will and a deep love of Christ’s Church. I will continue to accompany the Church with my prayers, and I ask each of you to pray for me and for the new Pope. In union with Mary and all the saints, let us entrust ourselves in faith and hope to God, who continues to watch over our lives and to guide the journey of the Church and our world along the paths of history.

GENERAL AUDIENCE Saint Peter's Square Wednesday, 27 February 2013

In closing, we can view the meaning of the "expanded Petrine ministry" as the Papacy's "contemplative ministry" had been strengthen by the Wisdom of God inspired to Pope Benedict XVI in purposely choosing the title "Emeritus" so that his offering of a life of prayer and sacrifices carries still the universal force of a Pope. Pope Benedict still retain the "munus" and still wear the White Robe and still addressed as "Your Holiness" but as far as his testimonies and numerous videos are concerned he clearly acknowledges the legitimacy of the Papacy of Pope Francis.

The key word in his testimony is by acknowledging the mission of his chosen name St.Benedict  a well known powerful Prayer Warrior/Intercessor which he intend to live and fulfill as long as he lives for the service of the Church.
In reality Pope Francis is so blessed to have a Great Prayer Warrior inside the Vatican who did not abandon the Church and did not flee from the wolves rather Pope Benedict XVI courage has engage a direct spiritual combat with the wolves thru contemplative prayer.

The testimony of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI clearly debunked all conspiracy theories circling around the mainstrean and social media about the legitimacy of Pope Francis papacy and the issues on his forced resignation are all false.


Is the OT unveiled in the entire NT or just the Gospels? St. Augustine Sayeth:

  the New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New.

(paraphrased quote from the Catechism)

Just for context, I looked this up and he actually said

  Wherefore, in the Old Testament there is a veiling of the New, and in the New Testament there is a revealing of the Old.

source

We believe this in Catholicism and it's apparent from the way we structure the readings at Mass, the OT reading is always subtly explaining the Gospel one.  But is that the case, is it just the Gospel (+Acts?) that is hidden in the OT.  How do the epistles and revelation work in to the "hidden in / unveiled" equation?

I think the whole NT reveals the old, particularly in explaining OT prophecy. Possible the best example is the Book of Hebrews, since it may well have been written for exactly that purpose. Some examples:

To which of the angels did God ever say,
"Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet"

Hebrews 1:13, quoting Psalm 110:1.
Then there is the account of Melchizedek in Hebrews 7, who as both King and Priest was an archetype of Christ. (This theme is carried on into subsequent chapters, the High Priest in chapter 8 and the Blood of a sacrifice (Christ in NT) in chapters 9 and 10.)
Finally (in this very brief overview of Hebrews), is the men and women of faith in chapter 11.
That's just one book!
Other examples I could mention are the imaginary of Ezekiel and Daniel coming back in Revelation, Paul explaining grace in Galatians 4:21-31 using the examples of Hagar and Sarah and Peter quoting proverbs in 2 Peter 2:22.
Finally (for my summary, there is of course much more), there is the promise of a New Heaven and a New Earth, first revealed in Isaiah 65:17 and 66:22 and then repeated by Peter in 2 Peter 3:13 and John in Revelation 21:1.
So, yes, the OT comes back time and time again in the NT. One might speculate it was planned that way. :)


Do Protestants believe that the Holy Spirit stopped leading the church? What do Protestants believe in the matter of the Holy Spirit leading the church? Especially the Catholic church. The first mention of the catholic church was about the 1st. century.

Did the Holy Spirit stop working in apostles and others that time christian leaders? Did he start working again in people in 15 century? Was He quiet the whole time since the first century? In order to believe this, isn't this kind of against Jesus promise, that he will stay with us and he'll give us his Spirit?

Isn't this sinning against the Holy Spirit? Mark 3:29

so 2 questions:
1. Was HS gone during 1600 years?
2. Believing this, isn't it sinning against HS?

Pentecost is called the "Church's birthday" for a reason, and that reason is the Holy Spirit.

As for the idea of "Was He quiet the whole time since the first century?"

Um, no.

The Protestant Reformation was just that - a re-formation of the original church. While we may disagree about what it means to be the first church, we acknowledge that we are descended from the Catholic church. While it is true that there is a definite strain of anti-catholicism for historical reasons, even at its height, nobody said the Holy Spirit was gone after the apostles.  (If there was a date the Spirit got disgusted, typically it is said to be in the 400s or 500s at the earliest).

Our theology holds to traditional norms of the first church.

At most, we find that the Holy Spirit has been less active (aka Cessationalism)

But no serious, mainstream Protestant denomination believes the Holy Spirit to have been absent.


Why is our righteousness as filthy rags? I want to know why man's righteousness is as filthy rags, especially as it relates to the idea of works righteousness, or earning one's own salvation. Is it because humans are incapable of offering up works of righteousness due that are ends in themselves? To put it another way, is it because the expectation of a reward nullifies the benevolence of the act? If so, how does Christianity address this?

The relevant quote from Isaiah 64:6 is given below:

  All of us have become like one who is unclean

  and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags;

  we all shrivel up like a leaf,

  and like the wind our sins sweep us away.

To put it another way, is it because the expectation of a reward nullifies the benevolence of the act? If so, how does Christianity address this?

Your quote from Isaiah is similar to a quote from Romans;

  Romans 3:10  As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

These attestations of original sin or the inability of humans to raise themselves to righteousness indicate our fallen state. This is usually observed in religious practice as a type of theater;

  Matthew 6:2  Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a
  trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the
  streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They
  have their reward.

Christianity is rather unique in worlds religions. Most religions are works based and are described in terms of what you have to do to get something. Even some Christian denominations have been packaged as a "do this, get that" religious system.

At the core of Christianity is the gift of eternal life that is available through trusting in Jesus. There is nothing that has to be done to earn this gift.

True Christianity is about transcendence. Once we have new life in Christ and are filled with his Spirit, we should begin a transition away from those things that appeal to the flesh and are more drawn to those things pertaining to the Spirit. The letter to the Galatians describes much about this.

Christians are supposed to be growing in the image of Christ. This is leaving the world of selfishness and the flesh and maturing in the world of selflessness and love.

True "benevolence" comes from a heart not contaminated by "self". Jesus is our example in this of that to which we should aspire.

  Romans 5:8  But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we
  were yet sinners, Christ died for us.


What was the reasons for documentary hypothesis? Documentary Hypothesis assumes that the text of the Torah as
  preserved can be divided into identifiable sources that predate its
  compilations by centuries, the Jahwist (J) source being the oldest,
  dating to as early as the 10th century BCE, along with the Elohist
  (E), the Deuteronomist (D), and the Priestly source (P), dating to the
  8th to 6th centuries. The final compilation of the extant text is
  dated to either the 6th or 5th century BCE.

What specific verses or parts of Pentateuch drive to the above hypothesis?

The hypothesis was formed from several lines of evidence suggesting that more than one author had a hand in writing the Torah.

Stage 1

The first stage was the recognition of certain passages that looked like additions from a later copyist:

Deuteronomy 34, the account of Moses' death, including the phrase in verse 6, "no one knows his burial place to this day."
Genesis 12:6, "At that time the Canaanites were in the land." And they still were when Moses died.
Numbers 21:14, referring to "the Book of the Wars of the Lord", which would have been written after the Torah
Numbers 12:3, stating, "Moses was very humble, more so than anyone else on the face of the earth," which would not have been true if he had written it himself.

Stage 2

The second stage was the discovery of "doublets", stories that appeared in two forms, with differing details that included one version using Elohim to refer to God, and the other version using YHWH. Examples include:

Creation: Genesis 1:1 - 2:3 ("six days", Elohim); Genesis 2:4-25 ("Garden of Eden", YHWH)
God's covenant with Abraham: Genesis 15:1-21 (YWHW); Genesis 17:1-27 (Elohim, though it refers to YWHW in verse 1)
Abraham calls his wife his sister: Genesis 12:10-20 (YHWH); Genesis 20:1-18 (Elohim, though it uses YHWH in verse 18)

And then there are doublets that don't fit the YWHW/Elohim pattern, but appear reflect two distinct traditions:

God renames Jacob to Israel: Genesis 32:22-32 (after wrestling God at Peniel); Genesis 35:9-15 (at Bethel)
Moses' father in law: Exodus 2:17-22 (Zipporah's father is Reuel); Exodus 18:1-6 (Zipporah's father is Jethro)
Covenant of the Ten Commandments: Exodus 34 (on Mount Sinai); Deuteronomy 5 (on Mount Horeb) — Deuteronomy 5 is written as a reminder of the covenant from Exodus 34

Stage 3

The third stage was the development of the documentary hypothesis itself. Scholars identified what they believed to be four sources, which they labeled J, E, P, and D.

J: these always used YHWH to refer to God (most of the scholars were German, and German J = English Y)
E: these almost always used Elohim (or a related form, e.g. El Shaddai or El Elyon) to refer to God
P: these passages referred to matters relating to Priests
D: the book of Deuteronomy was considered to have its own distinct source


According the infallibility of scripture, do ancient near east laws (ANE laws) really explain the derivation of the laws of Moses? In the last 100 years, archaeology has discovered many ancient bodies of law including Sumerian, Babylonian, Hittite, Assyrian and Canaanite ancient laws. This has caused a lot of significant hoopla among interpreters of the first five books of the Bible. For example Hammurabi's Code has been often referred to in modern attempts at exegesis of the Torah. You could say this is one of the ‘modern’ discoveries of our time. Not quite as significant as the ‘dead sea scrolls’ but significant enough to stir various biblical scholars.

One reason for the stir is that it has dismissed earlier false biblical criticisms that the laws of Moses could have never been written at the time they were allegedly written, as nobody had advanced laws at that time. This seems based on a natural non-faith based derivation of scripture but that was the argument.  However as these poor ideas of ‘modern biblical knowledge’ are washed aside, a new theory is taking its place, namely the laws of Moses are basically a collection of some of the best laws at the time. Fully natural to understand them now.

The question I ask is, does this really explain how the laws of Moses came into being?

Note: I am asking for an answer based on a belief in the infallibility of scripture.

If anything, it says that God is both generous and accommodating. There are two scenarios that should be considered:

God granted the same knowledge of what good governance should look like. This says that God's glory will in fact be shown in all nations, as he himself proclaimed.  (Gen 12 and Psalm 2 come to mind, but there are others)
If the other nations derived these laws completely independently of Gods prompting, then it can be argued equally as well that God knew what his people could bear, and strove to make them unique to a point (the sacrifices etc), but also understood that there was a limit to that. When the children of Israel wanted a king, for example, he relented. He knew it was suboptimal, but heard their cries nonetheless.

Either case shows that it would not be inconsistent with God's character to repeat Himself or others in choosing optimal laws.

Indeed, one oft-cited constraint of perfection is immutability. If something is perfect, it cannot change. There is nothing to suggest that optimality behaves differently. There really is a best way to connect two points, for example.


What is the origin of closing one's eyes during prayer? I have been a Christian since my youth, but I have never received a satisfactory answer to this question.
Why must a Christian close their eyes during prayer?
In large services in the west, (I am not familiar with other traditions) believers bow their heads and close their eyes while being led in prayer, often speaking internally to God or self reflecting. Bowing one's head, or prostrating themselves is itself a form of worship.
Personally, in moments of personal prayer I do not close my eyes because I find it more distracting. But in my family and church I grew up in this would be seen as very offensive if someone might walk in and see me praying with my eyes open.
I'm mostly interested in the scriptural basis for closing one's eyes while praying. Not so much the historical reason for the tradition developing, although I recognize it might be difficult to separate the two.

Closing the eyes in prayer is for the same reason as one may fast in association with prayer.
It is to detach oneself from the things of this world, from the things of the flesh and from the things that can be seen.
But, like fasting, it is purely voluntary. There are no 'instructions' as to when to pray, or how often to pray anywhere in the bible (only examples to follow, if one  wishes).
Nor are there 'instructions' about fasting. It is purely voluntary, though it is encouraged in scripture and, again, there are examples to follow.
Likewise there are examples to follow, round about us, as to closing the eyes. Every congregation I have ever worshiped with, has done so.
And so do I, personally, every time I 'shut my closet door' and pray to the Father in secret, where none else can see me.


How do I get more faith? I'm really terrible at faith.  I understand that it's a choice to have or not have faith, I'd really like to choose the former, but my very much neurotic nature often gets the best of me, and often holds me back I think...  So my question is "How do I get more faith?"

Romans 10:17

  So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
  NKJV

Faith comes by reading and hearing the Word of God.

I personally try to speak out loud the Word of God as often as i can so that i can hear it. I have also heard from others (but have not tried it yet myself) that they enjoy listening to the audio versions of the Bible.


Where does the idea come from that the KJV is the proper bible to be used? I have heard (mostly from the older generations) that the KJV is the only bible to be used, and all the other ones are changing the bible. Where does this idea come from? Is it a churches teaching or the individual opinions of people? I have learned from my studies that it is probably the least reliable bible, so I was wondering why people set their minds so much upon the KJV.

Where does the idea come from that the KJV is the proper bible to be used?

People have various reasons for preferring the KJV.

There is no copyright so it can  be used without worry that someone will sue them.
Some people believe that it is supernaturally "preserved" by God to be the accurate translation.
Some prefer that the language contemporary with Shakespeare is preferable.
Some prefer the fact that is translated from the TR as opposed to many newer translations based on the Alexandrian Greek manuscript.

There is a natural defensive reaction to stick with the familiar when the new encompasses much that is suspicious. Readers Digest has a condensed "Bible" version. There are gender neutral bibles and other "bibles" that either emphasize some viewpoint or push some agenda.


According to biblical inerrantists, are the apostles' recorded speeches in the book of Acts inerrant? Evangelicals/fundamentalists who believe in biblical inerrancy hold that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and contains no errors.1  This is typically understood to refer to the original autographs of texts that were written by or under one of the recognized apostles (twelve plus Paul).

There are a number of places in the Gospels where the words of the apostles are obviously wrong, such as when Jesus rebukes Peter in Matthew 16:22–23.  This isn't a problem to the inerrantist, because the record is inerrant, not the content of Peter's speech.

Does anything change when we turn to the Book of Acts?  That is, do those who believe the Evangelical/Fundamentalist view of biblical inerrancy also believe that the speeches made by the apostles are inerrant?

For example, an inerrantist would say that the Book of Acts is inerrant.  Thus, Acts 20 is an inerrant record of a historical event (which happens to include a speech by Paul). But, does the inerrantist extend this and hold that Jesus definitely, without a doubt, said the things that Paul attributes to him in that speech?

  Acts 20:35 (ESV)
  “Remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’”

Or is it theoretically possible, according to the biblical inerrantist, that Paul was mistaken, or even lying, about what Jesus said?

I'm not specifically asking about this passage, but more generally about all the recorded speeches of apostles in the book of Acts.

A great answer would cite inerrantist scholars who deal with this question.  If there is disagreement among evangelicals, I'd like an overview of the positions.

1. For the purposes of this question, I'm referring to those who would sign the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.

One way to demonstrate that, according to inerrantists, the apostles' recorded speeches are not necessarily inerrant, would be to find a speech that inerrantist theologians admit contains an error.  At least one such example exists.  In Acts 20:25, Paul speaks to the elders of Ephesus, and says:

  And now, behold, I know that none of you among whom I have gone about proclaiming the kingdom will see my face again. [ESV]

It's a matter of some debate as to whether or not Paul actually did return to Ephesus.  If he did, that would perhaps indicate that Paul was mistaken.  So how do inerrantist scholars deal with this verse?

The Moody Bible Commentary establishes itself as an inerrantist work in its treatment of 2 Timothy 3:16 ("inerrancy in both historical fact and in doctrine").  Regarding Acts 20:25, it reads:

  Because Paul did not know exactly what would happen in the future, he told the elders they would never see him again.  Paul did see the Ephesians again after he spent two years in Rome under house arrest; but at this point he did not know he would return to the area, so his concern was to prepare the elders for ministry in his absence.

Similarly, the Reformation Study Bible, whose general editor, R. C. Sproul, signed the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy:

  Paul's statement was based on his own judgment of the situation rather than on divine revelation.  [...] Paul considered it likely that he was seeing the Ephesian elders for the last time.  However, it appears that Paul was later able to return to Ephesus after his release from prison in Rome.

Millard Erickson addresses the issue more broadly:

  Stephen, in his speech in Acts 7, may not have been inspired, although he was filled with the Holy Spirit.  Thus, his chronological statement in verse 6 is not necessarily free from error.  It appears that even Paul and Peter may on occasion have made incorrect statements.

So when is a biblical statement considered inerrant?  Erickson continues:

  When, however, something is taken by a biblical writer, from whatever source, and incorporated in his message as an affirmation, not merely a report, then it must be judged as truthful.

Summary
Evangelicals holding to inerrancy have no issue with errors being reported by the biblical writers, even when such errors are spoken by apostles.  Thus the speeches of the apostles recorded in the inerrant book of Acts are not necessarily inerrant.  The biblical writer must directly affirm or teach a falsehood in order to contradict inerrancy.


How are ectopic pregnancies supposed to be dealt with according to the Catholic Church? The Catholic Church is against abortion in all cases, except, I've heard, where the life of the mother is at serious risk and the child has no chance of survival.  A good example of this would seem to be the case of an ectopic pregnancy, where the human embryo implants in the mothers fallopian tube.

But some actual forms of abortion would seem to violate respect for the human person, forming in the wrong place by no fault of his or her own.  So, in the end what means are licit for dealing with ectopic pregnancies?

Ectopic pregnancies are a classic application of the principle of double effect:

  The principle that says it is morally allowable to perform an act that has at least two effects, one good and one bad. It may be used under the following conditions:

  the act to be done must be good in itself or at least morally indifferent; by the act to be done is meant the deed itself taken independently of its consequences;
  the good effect must not be obtained by means of the evil effect; the evil must be only an incidental by-product and not an actual factor in the accomplishment of the good;
  the evil effect must not be intended for itself but only permitted; all bad will must be excluded form the act;
  there must be a proportionately grave reason for permitting the evil effect. At least the good and evil effects should be nearly equivalent.
  All four conditions must be fulfilled. If any one of them is not satisfied, the act is morally wrong.

  An example of the lawful use of the double effect would be the commander of a submarine in wartime who torpedoes an armed merchant vessel of the enemy, although he foresees that several innocent children on board will be killed. All four required conditions are fulfilled:

  he intends merely to lessen the power of the enemy by destroying an armed merchant ship. He does not wish to kill the innocent children;
  his action of torpedoing the ship is not evil in itself;
  the evil effect (the death of the children) is not the cause of the good
  effect (the lessening of the enemy's strength);
  there is sufficient
  reason for permitting the evil effect to follow, and this reason is
  administering a damaging blow to those who are unjustly attacking his
  country.

See Summa Theologica II-II q. 64 a. 7 or §2.5 "Moral Norms Especially Relevant to Health Care" of Health Care Ethics: A Theological Analysis.

In the case of ectopic pregnancy, neither the death of the child nor of the mother is intended. Curing the ailment may have the unintended side-effect of the death of the child, though, but this does not make curing her morally forbidden.

See:

Fr. T. Lincoln Bouscaren, Ethics of Ectopic Operations, (Milwaukee, Wis.: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1944).
Gerald Kelly, Medico-Moral Problems, 1958.ch. 14 The Morality of Ectopic Operations, p. 105


What is the biblical basis for a Flat Earth? From time to time I've come across Christians who claim that the Bible teaches a flat earth (e.g. see this book and the reviews). There are also Christians who have reacted against these (e.g. 1, 2).
In pursuit of impartiality and to give Flat Earth Christians the benefit of the doubt, I ask: What passages of the Bible are commonly cited to make a case for the belief in a Flat Earth?

What is the biblical basis for a Flat Earth?
Wikipedia makes the claim that St. John Chrysostom and Archbishop of Constantinople, explicitly espoused the idea, based on scripture, that the Earth floats miraculously on the water beneath the firmament.

Diodorus of Tarsus, a leading figure in the School of Antioch and mentor of John Chrysostom, may have argued for a flat Earth; however, Diodorus' opinion on the matter is known only from a later criticism. Chrysostom, one of the four Great Church Fathers of the Eastern Church and Archbishop of Constantinople, explicitly espoused the idea, based on scripture, that the Earth floats miraculously on the water beneath the firmament. Athanasius the Great, Church Father and Patriarch of Alexandria, expressed a similar view in Against the Heathen. - Flat Earth

Nowhere in Scripture does it state that the earth is flat. Interpretation at times, by various individuals may tend to imply a flat earth.

The biblical texts most often cited in the claim that the Bible teaches a flat Earth are Job 38:5, 12-14, Isaiah 11:12, 40:22, and Revelation 7:1, 20:7. Of these passages, the most cited is Isaiah 40:22.  The relevant part of Isaiah 40:22, referring to God, states, “He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers.” Whether the “circle of the earth” refers to a human on Earth or God looking down on Earth from above, in both cases the phrase would be consistent with a spherically shaped Earth. It is worth noting that only a sphere always looks like a circle when seen from above.
The Isaiah 11:12 and Revelation 7:1, 20:7 verses all refer to the “four corners of the earth.” However, even today, astronomers, physicists, and educated people around the world recognize and use the “four corners of the earth” as phenomenalogical language referring to the most distant parts of Earth from the standpoint of an observer at a specific location on Earth. It is clear from an examination of the context for all three of these passages that the most distant parts of Earth is the intent implied by the use of the idiom, the four corners of the earth. As the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament points out, the Hebrew word for “corners” used in Isaiah 11:12, kanap, in most of its appearances in the Old Testament is used figuratively.
The passage in Job 38:5 referring to Earth states, “Who fixed its dimensions? Certainly you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it?” The inference made by those claiming that the Bible is a flat-earth book is that the “measuring line” is a straight line which would be suitable for measuring a flat disk but not a sphere. This is an overinterpretation. Lines can be straight or curved. Also, it is customary to measure the diameter of a sphere with a straightedge ruler.
Job 38:12-14 refers to the dawn seizing “the edges [or ends] of the earth” and Earth taking “shape like clay under a seal.” What is interesting here is that for a spherical Earth the arrival of dawn first shows up at the most distant horizon, end, or edge of the point of view of a human at a fixed point upon Earth’s surface. The taking shape like clay under a seal would apply to either a disk or a sphere and may be saying more about Earth’s rotation or its manufacture than its actual shape.
The irony of choosing Job 38:5, 12-14, Isaiah 11:12, 40:22, and Revelation 7:1, 20:7 to sustain the claim that the Bible is a flat-earth book is that these biblical texts better fit a spherical Earth than they do a flat Earth. While it would be an overinterpretation to conclude that these texts explicitly teach that Earth is a sphere, nowhere in the Bible do we find any text saying that Earth is flat. The Bible remains the only holy book for which we can say that it contains no provable errors or contradictions. - Is the Bible a Flat-Earth Book?

So no versus in Scripture states that: “The earth is flat.” Flat earth clearly might be implied in Scripture: ”The devil took Jesus to a very high mountain and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world.”  (Matt 4:8)
Some might have thought that since the Bible says (50 times) that the Earth has ends; it must be flat:

But you, Israel, My servant, Jacob whom I have
chosen, descendant of Abraham My friend, you whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, and called from its remotest parts [Ur]. Is 41:8-9
Abraham from Ur (S. Mesopotamia) Gen 11:31 Ur at shoreline of the circumferential sea
Jesus: The Queen of the South [Sheba] will rise
at the judgment with this generation & condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth
to listen to Solomon’s wisdom. Matt 12:42
Sheba in the SW corner of Arabia - The Bible and Ancient Science (University of Alberta)

One of those issue concerns the second day of creation (Genesis 1:6-8), where God made the “expanse” or the “firmament.” The Hebrew word for this is raqia. Biblical scholars understand the raqia to be a solid dome-like structure. It separates the water into two parts, so that there is water above the raqia and water below it (v. 7). The waters above are kept at bay so the world can become inhabitable. On the third day (vv. 9-10), the water below the raqia is “gathered to one place” to form the sea and allow the dry land to appear.
Ancient Israelites “saw” this barrier when they looked up. There were no telescopes, space exploration, or means of testing the atmosphere. They relied on what their senses told them. Even today, looking up at a clear sky in open country, the sky seems to “begin” at the horizons and reaches up far above. Ancient Israelites and others in that part of the world assumed the world was flat, and so it looked like the earth is covered by a dome, and the “blue sky” is the “water above” held back by the raqia. The translation “firmament” (i.e., firm) gets across this idea of a solid structure.
Biblical scholars agree on this understanding of raqia. For some Christians, however, this is troubling. How can the Bible, which is the inspired, revealed word of God, contain such an inaccurate piece of ancient nonsense? Hence, some invest a lot of time and energy to show that the raqia is not solid but more like the atmosphere. Often, the word “expanse” is the preferred translation because it does not necessarily imply something solid.
Arguing for a non-solid raqia in Genesis is extremely problematic, for two reasons. First, the biblical and extrabiblical data indicate that raqia means a solid structure of some sort. The second problem is a much larger theological issue, but is actually more foundational. Regardless of what one thinks of the raqia, why would anyone assume that the ancient cosmology in Genesis could be expected to be in harmony with modern science in the first place? - The Firmament of Genesis 1 is Solid but That’s Not the Point

Here follows a few sites that some may wish to peruse at their leisure:

Does the Bible Teach that the Earth is Flat?
What does the Bible say about: Flat Earth
The Flat-Earth Bible


According to Catholicism, what Old Testament text is referred to in John 19: 36? We see at John 19: 31-36, how the early death of Jesus on the Cross staved off the prospects of his legs being broken to fasten death :
".... Because the Jewish leaders did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. .... But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs... These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken,”
The cross reference of OT that one gets to the said Verse 36 are the following:
Psalms 34:19-20:
The righteous person may have many troubles,
but the Lord delivers him from them all;
he protects all his bones,
not one of them will be broken.
Exodus 12:43-46
"The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “These are the regulations for the Passover meal:... It must be eaten inside the house; take none of the meat outside the house. Do not break any of the bones. "
Numbers 9: 10-12:
"" Tell the Israelites: .... to celebrate the Lord’s Passover,  ..... on the fourteenth day of the second month at twilight. They are to eat the lamb, together with unleavened bread and bitter herbs.  They must not leave any of it till morning or break any of its bones. "
While the references of Exodus and Numbers refer to the bones of the sacrificial lamb, that of Psalms refer to the righteous person. I wish to know as to which of the above is the OT reference that  the Evangelist had in mind at John 19:36 . Does the Catholic Church offer any definitive clue in this regard ?

According to Catholicism, what Old Testament text is referred to in John 19: 36?
The Original and True Rheims New Testament of Anno Domini 1582 (page 227) states very clearly in the margin for reference on the bold text of John 19:36 that it refers to Ex 12:46.

For these things were done that the scripture might be fulfilled, You shall not break a bone of him.

Exodus 12:46 reads as follows:

46 In one house shall it be eaten, neither shall you carry forth of the flesh thereof out of the house, neither shall you break a bone thereof.

Jesus is the true Lamb of God


Does New Testament accounting language have any Old Testament backing? Throughout the New Testament, the language of money is used to discuss sin and the gospel: words like debt, forgiveness, redeem, and impute.

For example, Colossians 2 explains forgiveness of trespasses as cancellation of debt. This brings in both the metaphor of a trespass as a debt and the concept that such a debt can be cancelled or "set aside" as part of regeneration by "nailing it to the cross".

In Romans 3, those who are "justified by his grace" are said to be done so "as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." Here justification (or righteousness) is made to be something that can be given as a gift, and it is done so by redeeming one as from bondage. Redemption (ἀπολύτρωσις here) language is often connected with paying the debt of someone else; often someone who has been made a slave to the creditor.

Finally, the language of "imputation" is sometimes used, in which funds are "transferred" from one account to another, at least on paper. I use the quotes and qualification to point out that there is no physical transference of monies, but rather, the funds are "counted" or "imputed" to the other account. This is not especially difference from the electronic transactions we have today. Romans 4 uses this language as a way of explaining how God gives righteousness to those who have faith in Jesus: "And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness." Other translations here say that faith is "credited" is righteousness, or "reckoned" or "accounted", or can be translated "imputed". The Greek word here is λογίζεται, and these are all accounting terms with this same meaning in this context.

So my question is two-fold:

Does the Old Testament use this sort of language to refer to sin and righteousness?
In these Old Testament usages of monetary/accounting language, is such a concept of a transaction included, whereby sin is taken on by God, or that man is redeemed, his sin-debt forgiven, or righteousness granted?

1. Accounting Language

It is of course a different language, but yes, the same sort of language is present in the OT as well.

Repayment - for good and for evil

  For the LORD is a God of recompense, He will fully repay Jeremiah 51:56

  Therefore the LORD has recompensed me according to my righteousness, According to the cleanness of my hands in His eyes. Psalm 18:24

  Requite them according to their work and according to the evil of their practices; Requite them according to the deeds of their hands; Repay them their recompense.  Psalm 28:4

Our Redeemer

  As for me, I know that my Redeemer lives, And at the last He will take His stand on the earth.  Job 19:25

  Do not fear, you worm Jacob, you men of Israel; I will help you,” declares the LORD, “ and your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel.  Isaiah 41:14

Seeking true profit

  Riches do not profit in the day of wrath, But righteousness delivers from death.  Proverbs 11:4

  Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel, “I am the LORD your God, who teaches you to profit, Who leads you in the way you should go.  Isaiah 48:17

  How blessed is the man who finds wisdom and the man who gains understanding. For her profit is better than the profit of silver and her gain better than fine gold.  Proverbs 3:13-14

Debt

  The one who despises the word will be in debt to it, But the one who fears the commandment will be rewarded.  Proverbs 13:13

Forgiveness

  But You are a God of forgiveness, Gracious and compassionate, Slow to anger and abounding in lovingkindness  Nehemiah 9:17

2. Transaction / Imputation

Yes, the concept of transaction is also present in the Old Testament.  The words aren't used explicitly, but the transaction should be apparent from the text:

  Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed... the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him.  Isaiah 53


In "take up your cross daily" what does "cross" refer to? Then he said to them all: “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me. (Luke 9:23)

What does Jesus mean here? What kind of cross is he referring to?

There are at least two questions here, probably three. What would his hearers have understood by it before and after his arrest and crucifixion? And again after his resurrection? Jesus spoke in Aramaic, translated into Greek by Luke and later into English. To complicate things further, the word he used for cross was probably the Latin furca, a fork. This was a term used in the Roman Army for a backpack, and as slang for a punishment yoke or gallows, not the cross used in crucifixion as Romans were mainly exempt. General Marius devised cross-shaped backpacks for his men, capable of carrying large loads, reducing the need for baggage trains. This resulted in the men being nicknamed Marius's Mules. Each day they would take up their packs and march.
You asked what Jesus would have meant by it. That will no doubt be answered fully by other contributors. Comments by him and others point to literal and non-literal answers. He knew what he was heading towards. Outside Roman slang there was no reason not to extend the use of furca for a crucifixion cross or a burden carried to that end. Non-Romans probably did.


Did Martin Luther effectively teach that our justification is like white snow covering over dung? Over the internet I have come across posts like this that say

  Luther stated that our sinful state is much like the piles of manure.
  It is ugly, repulsive and offensive. There is nothing in it that would
  commend it to anyone, especially God – but justification is like the
  first snowfall in winter. It covers the sight and smell of the manure
  piles with a blanket of pure white. The pile is still inherently a
  manure pile, but now it is covered.

And others variants of it e.g.

  Martin Luther described God's forgiveness as Christ simply covering
  over our sinful souls, like a blanket of snow covering a manure heap. - cf. @Verbum's post in On Jesus' blood covering sins | Catholic Answers Forums and 2nd to last paragraph here.

Is there a reference that would show that Martin Luther did in fact state or teach this? If he didn't say this, what did he actually say that may have led to this re-stating?

If he did teach this, how does Lutheranism or those understanding or agreeing with this perspective reconcile this teaching with Scripture that God in his Christ does actually take way the sins of the world1 and not just cover them over (i.e. when we have been justified by Christ, God looking down sees only the white snow but not the dung underneath that still remains)?

1. John 1:29 (RSVCE), Heb 9:22-24 (RSVCE), etc.

Please see also Christians are doomed to hell? | C.SE. It turned out that what has been claimed that a community taught, has actually never been an official teaching of that community.

According to this article: Has Martin Luther's "Snow-Covered Dunghill" Mystery-Legend Been Solved?! the answer to the question is, "No, he did not say that, but it sounds like something he would have said."

Luther said:

  Conceived in sorrow and corruption, the child sins in his mother’s
  womb. As he grows older, the innate element of corruption develops.
  Man has said to sin: ‘Thou art my father’—and every act he performs is
  an offense against God; and to the worms: ‘You are my brothers’—and he
  crawls like them in mire and corruption. He is a bad tree and cannot
  produce good fruit; a dunghill, and can only exhale foul odors. He is
  so thoroughly corrupted that it is absolutely impossible for him to
  produce good actions. Sin is his nature; he cannot help committing it.
  Man may do his best to be good, still his every action is unavoidably
  bad; he commits a sin as often as he draws his breath. (Werke, (Wittenberg Edition), Vol. III, p. 518.)

In Luther's commentary on Psalm 51:7, which refers to snow cleansing our sins:

  "How can we become "purer than snow" even though the remnants of sin
  always cling to us? I answer: I have always said that man is divided
  into spirit and flesh. Therefore, as far as the total man is
  concerned, there remains remnants of sin or, as Paul calls them (2
  Cor. 7:1), "defilements of body and spirit." . . . Still we have
  obtained Baptism, which is most pure; we have obtained the Word, which
  is most pure; and in the Word and Baptism we have by faith obtained
  the blood of Christ, which is surely most pure. According to this
  purity, which in spirit and faith we have from Christ and from the
  Sacraments that He instituted, the Christian is rightly said to be
  purer than snow . . . even though the defilements of spirit and flesh
  cling to him. These are concealed and covered by the cleanness and
  purity of Christ . . .

  . . . if you look at a Christian without the righteousness and purity
  of Christ, as he is in himself, even though he be most holy, you will
  find not only no cleanness, but what I might call diabolical
  blackness. . . . Therefore if they ask: "Sin always clings to man;
  how, then, can he be washed so as to make him whiter than snow?" you
  reply: "We should look at a man, not as he is in himself, but as he is
  in Christ."

The linked article above provides many more words from Luther, and goes much deeper into detail about the question, and even quotes a "snow over refuse" analogy by Luther, but that analogy has more to do with his belief in sanctification. The conclusion in the article is that Luther did not exactly describe God's forgiveness as Christ simply covering over our sinful souls, like a blanket of snow covering a manure heap, but that this unofficial quote was constructed from many different things that Luther did say.


What is the biblical basis for the concept of being "slain in the spirit" and what exactly is it? Among charismatic Christians, I have occasionally heard the phrase "to be slain in the spirit."  I have not found any biblical reference to this phrase, so what is it to which this is referring and what is the biblical basis for it?

From http://www.bible.ca/tongues-slain-in-spirit.htm come the following scriptures, which the website says charismatics use to prove the biblical basis of being slain in the Spirit.

II CHRONICLES 5:11-14 - And it came to pass, when the priests were come out of the holy [place]: (for all the priests [that were] present were sanctified, [and] did not [then] wait by course: Also the Levites [which were] the singers, all of them of Asaph, of Heman, of Jeduthun, with their sons and their brethren, [being] arrayed in white linen, having cymbals and psalteries and harps, stood at the east end of the altar, and with them an hundred and twenty priests sounding with trumpets:) It came even to pass, as the trumpeters and singers [were] as one, to make one sound to be heard in praising and thanking the LORD; and when they lifted up [their] voice with the trumpets and cymbals and instruments of musick, and praised the LORD, [saying], For [he is] good; for his mercy [endureth] for ever: that [then] the house was filled with a cloud, [even] the house of the LORD; So that the priests could not stand to minister by reason of the cloud: for the glory of the LORD had filled the house of God.

MATTHEW 17:5-7: While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. And when the disciples heard [it], they fell on their face, and were sore afraid. And Jesus came and touched them, and said, Arise, and be not afraid.

JOHN 18:5-6: They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am [he]. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them. As soon then as he had said unto them, I am [he], they went backward, and fell to the ground.

ACTS 9:3-4: And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

This is what the author of the article, "Slain in the Spirit?", says on the website (in a slightly edited version) regarding these four Bible passages:

None of the above texts resemble anything remotely close to what happens when believers are slain in the spirit today. In 30 years of combined charismatic experience, my wife and I have observed fewer than 10 people fall, with no human instigation, under the power [of the Holy Spirit]. When people get slain it is due to the direct instigation of another person, not a sovereign act of God, as we see in 2 Chronicles 5:11-14.  Invariably, charismatic people fall down when hands are laid on them. There are no examples in the Bible of people falling down when hands were laid on them.

The author goes on to say,

[In the Chronicles passage,] all the priests fell down, not just some. There is no record of a Pentecostal or charismatic service where all the people fell down simultaneously under the power of God.  Keep in mind, the number of priests at the dedication numbered in the hundreds, and all of them had the exact same experience.

The following is my paraphrase of the author: In the Matthew passage, the disciples were not slain in the Spirit, but they were very much afraid; so much so, they fell on their faces (and not backward when someone touched them on the forehead!).
And an exact quotation of the author, with his emphasis:

This text [regarding Paul's conversion experience on the road to Damascus] cannot legitimately be used to prove the machinations taking place in charismatic circles. No one laid hands on Paul. According to the Biblical record this was not a regular occurrence in his life or ministry. Paul himself never testifies to laying hands on anyone and having them slain in the spirit, nor do any of the other writes of the New Testament, or Old Testament for that matter. Paul never lost consciousness, his faculties were very sharp, he was able to speak, he rationally answered the Lord

Finally, the author cites John White, who used the following two verses in his book When The Spirit Comes With Power to justify falling down under the Holy Spirit's power:

Daniel 10:9-10 But the sound of his words came to my ears, and on hearing his voice I went into a deep sleep with my face to the earth. Then a hand gave me a touch, awaking me, and putting me on my knees and my hands.

Rev. 1:17 - And when I saw him, I went down on my face at his feet as one dead. And he put his right hand on me, saying, Have no fear; I am the first and the last and the Living one.

And here is what the author says (with only minor changes by me) about White's use of these verses to prove the biblical nature of being slain in the Spirit:

In the event in Daniel we encounter the writing prophet at the banks of the Tigris. He alone sees the angelic being who has come to deliver to Daniel a sweeping revelation concerning the prophetic economy of God. This Old Testament account is totally devoid of any comparison of what takes place in Pentecostalism. First, Daniel was a writing prophet and as such the Lord manifested His Word to those prophets in various ways (dreams, visions, divine appearances, etc.).
Second, Daniel's experience was unexpected, whereas people fully expect to be slain in the spirit. The purpose of the manifestation to Daniel was to reveal a significant prophetic word to God's prophet. Next, while Daniel was overcome the angel touched him and gave him strength. This is something we do not see in today's services. I have seen multitudes fall, but none received supernatural strength. Notice also that Daniel fell face forward, whereas almost one hundred percent of charismatics who are slain in the Spirit fall backward; hence the need for catchers, since it is very difficult to catch people who are falling forward. It is interesting to note that in the biblical accounts when people have fallen, it is the sinners who fall backwards (John. 18:6). There simply is no legitimate manner in which this verse can be used to shore up a doctrine of being slain in the Spirit.
The text in Revelation 1:17, when examined, also fails to meet the test. John the beloved was an apostle of the Lamb. There are no more apostles today. Second, the reason John fell was because he saw his resurrected Lord. The purpose for the Lord Jesus appearing to John was to give him the final installment of the canon of Scripture. John was given a revelation of immense importance, but he never lost consciousness. Moreover, he also fell face forward.


Are people who light those candles (votive candles) supposed to take a vow? In Catholic Churches we light votive candles. I have never really understood what "votive" refers to. Are people who light those candles supposed to take a vow?

In Catholicism, a votive candle signifies literally that the lighting is done in fulfillment of a vow (Latin, votum), although in most cases the intention is merely to give honor and to seek help from the saint before whose images the candle is lit.
Roman pagan culture used candles in religious practice. Lit candles were used in religious and military processions, showing the divine presence, aid, or favor of the gods. With the development of emperor worship, candles were also lit near his image as a sign of respect and reverence. The emperor was considered divine and even given the titles Pontifex Maximus (High Priest) and Dominus et Deus (Lord and God).
Christians adapted the use of lit candles (or even oil lamps in the Eastern Roman Empire) for Mass, liturgical processions, evening prayer ceremonies, funeral processions, and to show reverence.


If "God" is a Trinity, where in the Bible does the word "God" refer to the Trinity? There may be places where the word is ambiguous.   What I am looking for is one example that must be all three.

The short answer is: nowhere.  But your question is misguided.

You cannot disprove the nature of God as Trinity by looking at how the NT authors use the word "God" (Θεός or Κύριος) because within a few decades after the revelation that Jesus was the 2nd member of the Trinity (as God the Son), the NT authors were still transitioning their terminology from Θεός and Κύριος ("God") to "Father".  The word "God" / "Lord" used to refer to Israel's God in the OT for at least 1,000 years.  It's understandable that for the sake of continuity, the NT authors were still using the same word "God" to mean God the Father who sent His Son when the sentence context needed it, while gradually reassigning "Lord" for Jesus, which is yet another sign of Trinitarian understanding driving the terminology change.  It was also logical to use new words for Jesus (such as Χριστός) and the Holy Ghost because both were newly revealed, bringing what was vaguely latent in the OT to be more explicit in the NT.

Thus the apostles were still in the very early stages of the Trinitarian formula development although they already understood God as Trinity shown by how they talked about worship, baptism, salvation, and eschatology because the roles of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct in each of those areas.  Please don't confuse formula development (which has to do with words and definitions, like what your question implies) with apostolic understanding of the nature of God.  It's like Newton already understood the laws of mechanics before Einstein refined the formula.

For an example of an apostolic understanding of the Trinity and a sign of the transition, simply look at one of the earliest record of the baptism formula in Matthew 28:19: "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit", which in Greek is εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος.  Where is the word Θεός or Κύριος in that formula?  Nowhere!  But surely God has to do with baptism, don't you think?

Consider @curiousdannii pointing out 1 Cor 2:10-16.  This was an even earlier sign of apostolic understanding of the Trinity, since this letter was commonly dated to early 50s rather than Matthew's early 60s.  In this passage, the word "God" in verse 10 clearly shows how St. Paul had the Trinity in his mind, since within the same section he explained the how it was possible for humans to comprehend the mysterious nature of God as Trinity by exploring the relationship between God, the Spirit of God, and the mind of Christ.

Other examples of apostolic understanding of God as Trinity can be seen in @Geremia's answer.  I understand that these verses don't answer your question, but it's a good list showing how the apostles already conceived God as Trinity within a mere 20-30 years after Jesus returned to heaven from where He came.  Recent research has also validated how NT authors's understanding of God came exclusively from Jewish perspective of God's fulfilling His promises rather than too much influenced by Hellenistic ideas (as Philo was).  (Example: see this paper comparing John and Philo).  (As an aside, the Jewish philosopher Philo was also marginalized by their own people within the Rabbinic Tradition).  Therefore we can safely say that the apostolic Trinitarian understanding of God wasn't due to some pagan influence as your other question tried to establish.


Reiterating John 3:16, as in its whole meaning… God says in John 3:16, “For God so loved the WORLD.”  Why does God love the world so much? Or the induvial people in it? I find is vaccinating that God loves his people so much. Later in, it says, “That he gave his only son” In this part God sacrificed his only son for his people in the worse way possible death on the cross. So, God not only loves the “World” so much, but he sent his son to save it. After we ruin it by eating of the tree of Good & Evil… But not only did He just sacrifice himself He took the burden of every sin in all existent! After all that, it says, “Whomever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life” Does this mean we only have to believe in Jesus Christ/God to go to heaven? Also, after all we have done to God, He still loves us and even lets us go to heaven.  Like man God is so loving and full of grace it’s remarkable.
-Thank you for your time and please help answer the questions I asked or give a comment. God Bless.

thank you for your questions.  Yes, God is wonderfully merciful, loving, and generous.  He is hurting a lot when his children go astray and hurt themselves, because He wants his children to be happy, but to be happy they have to return to him.  So God sends a rescue mission in the person of Jesus, his only Son.

I'll try to answer your questions now.

  Why does God love the world so much? Or the individual people in it?

The world in John 3:16 means all the people He had created, so yes, all the individuals.  The "world" here doesn't mean earth, although God also loves nature as well (because he creates the universe too !) and at the end of time God will recreate earth to be better than ever !

Why does God love the world?  Same reason why parents love their children: they brought the children into the world and they want the children to have the best lives they can have.

  Does this mean we only have to believe in Jesus Christ/God to go to heaven?

The short answer is YES.  But what does believing in Jesus mean?

Let's say the their child breaks a law (shoplifting, steal car, hurt another child, etc), then parents would have to pay for the damage so the child can come home from the police station.  Of course it costs the parents money and shame, but they want to give the child a new start.  But what does the child need to do?  If the child still wants to join gangs and doesn't want to come home, what can the parent do?  So believing in Jesus means you have to stop the rebellion and start trusting your parents again and SHOW the trust by obeying their commandments so you can grow to be the best adult you can be.  You don't have to repay your parents the cost of your upbringing or the damage you have caused, you only have to trust your parents.  It's FREE !  That's what believing in Jesus means.

I hope I answered your questions.  Please ask questions in the comments section.

God bless !


Why does Mark 15:34 say "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani"? In all Christian Bibles the translators wrote this verse in the same language and translated it, (maybe it's Hebrew which I don't know) but why only Mark 15:34 in the whole, is it because when Jesus was crying He cried in another language?

The New Testament was written in Greek, but the Greek text records Jesus' words in Aramaic (in Mark, Hebrew in Matthew). The Gospel writers transliterated the Aramaic (Mk 15) and Hebrew (Mt 27) into the Greek script.

It is important here to distinguish between script and language. For instance, I can write in Spanish, Latin, German, English, etc. all with (basically) the same Latin script, even though the languages are all different. And likewise, I can take the Hebrew word אֶל and transliterate it into Latin characters, ʾel. The language is still Hebrew, but the script is Latin.

Short answer: It's Aramaic (or Hebrew in Matthew) transliterated into the Greek script. Since the text provides a Greek translation immediately thereafter, it makes sense that the translators would retain it.


Why is the Bible a foundation of theological evidence? Please excuse my ignorance I'm new to this.

I've been looking through the Q&A on the site and I've noticed scripture and especially passages from the Bible are cited as evidence for one argument or another.

What is the theological argument that the Bible should form the basis of the Christian belief system?

EDIT

Whilst Mason's answer gives a good description of the ways, in which, the Bible is a good guide to commonly held Christian beliefs, the answer is, as Mason hints, a tautology.

I'm still a bit confused. There must have been a time after Jesus when some parts of the Bible had not been written and the Bible had not been gathered into one. Why is the Bible or, why has the Bible become the central text of the Christian faith?

Wow, this is a really fundamental question.  And the basic answer is, because the Bible is the foundation of Christian theology.

I hope that doesn't sound like a tautology.  What I mean by that is that the Bible is where we find the description of what Christianity is and what it's about.  The first few chapters of Genesis give us the creation of the world, the introduction to God and mankind, and the fundamental problems of our existence: sin and death.  The rest of the Old Testament teaches us about God's chosen people, his relationship with them and the covenants he made with them, and their history.  It places particular emphasis on how things worked out for them when they did and when they didn't live according to God's commandments.

And then we come to the New Testament, where the solution to the fundamental problems introduced in Genesis is given.  God sent his son, Jesus, to earth to pay the price of sin and overcome death, to make it possible for mankind to be restored to a perfect state through faith in him and his atonement.  It explains how Jesus did that, and what he taught us about how to live in order to make the atonement apply to us.  Then it continues on, showing the founding and early growth of the church that Jesus organized, based on the writings and the travels of the apostles that he ordained as leaders of the church.  They went around teaching people, organizing and building up the church, and clarifying various points of doctrine for people who didn't understand all the details.

This content makes the Bible a solid foundation for understanding the basis of Christianity and Christian doctrine, and the first authoritative place to look when searching for theological evidence on questions related to Christianity.


State of Grace and Demonic Possession If a person has not committed a mortal sin and is living in a state of grace, is it possible for that person to be possessed by a demon?

What is the Catholic Church's teaching on demonic possession and how to prevent it?

Unfortunately a Catholic living in the state of grace and has never committed a mortal sin could be diabolically possessed by a demon(s) through no fault of their own. Sometimes a person is unaware that the possession has happened until it is too late.

Fr. Gabriele Amorth in his book, An Exorcist Tells His Story (pages 56-63) gives the following reasons for persons becoming possessed by the devil:

  With God's permission.
  Being cursed by someone.
  When subject to an evil eye.
  A grave and hardened state of sin.
  Association with evil people and places.

I know this does not sound fair, but a saint or someone living a saintly life could be diabolically possessed and there are examples to prove this.

St. Benedict of Nursia dealt with the enemy of mankind on several occasions as we can see in the Dialogues of St. Gregory. In Chapter 30, for example St Benedict delivered a monk from the hands of the Evil One, who wanted to disrupt the building of a monastery.

Saint Benedict Restores a Monk to Life after he's been crushed by a falling wall; by the crumbling stone, an imp hovers, waiting to cause more trouble.

Possession With God's Permission alone is extremely rare in comparison to someone being possessed by being cursed by someone. Saint Mariam of Jesus Crucified (5 January 1846 – 26 August 1878) is an excellent example of this. She was actually possessed by the devil during her lifetime. Sister Mary of Jesus Crucified was beatified by Pope John Paul II on 13 November 1983 and was canonized on 17 May 2015 by Pope Francis.

  Little Mariam Baouardy, now known as Sister Mary of Jesus Crucified, was professed on 21 November 1871 as a Carmelite Religious. Prior to that action she was subjected to severe supernatural adversities. One of the most terrible was diabolic possession for a period of 40 days. She persevered in her simple child-like faith in God the Son and His Holy Mother Mary. Her rewards were those reserved for the most privileged of humans. She was fixed with the stigmata of her crucified Savior, experienced levitations, transverberations of the heart, knowledge of hearts, prophecies, possession by the Good Angel, and facial radiance. - "The Little Arab"

Mariam (St Mary of Jesus Crucified)

Protecting oneself against the Devil is not magic (pardon the pun), but the Church does offer some helpful tools in our spiritual life towards union with God.

  Live a holy and sacramental life going to Mass and receiving Holy Communion in the state of grace.
  Go to Confession on a regular basis (once a month). Fr. Gabriele Amorth tells us that this sacrament is the primary step to be freed from the Devil's clutch.
  Wear or carry close to your person a blessed Medal of St. Benedict.
  Wear the Miraculous Medal around one's neck. "All who wear them will receive great graces" when blessed.

On a personal note: I wear the Miraculous Medal everyday and carry a St. Benedict Medal in our car at all times. The Medal of St. Benedict I get blessed by the Abbot of a local monastery according to the Roman Ritual of the Extraordinary Rite because this blessing contains a minor exorcism. The ones I occasionally give away are gold plated are also blessed by a priest of the Extraordinary Rite of the Mass on the Feast of the Epiphany with the blessing for Gold, Frankincense and Myrrh (Benedictio Auru, Thuris et Myrrhae in Festo Epiphaniae) which also contain a minor exorcism within this blessing. This blessing is reserved for this feast.

  What is the difference between a major exorcism and a minor exorcism?

  While both forms of exorcism are directed against the power of the devil, the Rite of Major Exorcism is employed only when there is a case of genuine demonic possession, namely, when it is determined that the presence of the devil is in the body of the possessed and the devil is able to exercise dominion over that body.

  Minor exorcisms are prayers used to break the influence of evil and sin in a person's life, whether as a catechumen preparing for Baptism or as one of the Baptized faithful striving to overcome the influence of evil and sin in his or her life. - Frequently Asked Questions about Exorcism


3 Nep 20:24 - Why does Jesus Christ mention Samuel specifically? In 3 Nephi 20:24 Jesus Christ teaches the inhabitants of America about the covenant that God made with their fathers which will be fulfilled. He teaches that he is the prophet of whom Moses and all the prophets since Samuel testified of.

  3 Nephi 20

  23 Behold, I am he of whom Moses spake, saying: A prophet shall the
  Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him
  shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it
  shall come to pass that every soul who will not hear that prophet
  shall be cut off from among the people.

  24 Verily I say unto you, yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and
  those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have testified of me.

Why does he mention Samuel specifically?

Do you know of a prophet in the Old Testament between Moses and Samuel?

Joshua is the only one from whom we have much of a prophetic record, and in that record he seems to pretty much limit himself to what Moses taught. So Jesus, having explained that Moses testified about His coming and His teaching, moves on to Samuel, I would guess.

Elsewhere, such as in Jacob 7: 11, we are told that everyone from Adam down prophesied about Jesus. You can read some of those prophecies in the Pearl of Great Price.

If you are wondering, a significant part of the early Book of Mormon narrative concerns Lehi obtaining an early copy of what would be close to the Hebrew scriptures extant ca. 600 BC. So we see a bit of discussion of Moses and Isaiah and others of the Old Testament prophets in the Book of Mormon.

It is interesting that Jesus chose to teach a principle that Peter taught (See Acts 3: 22 - 26.), and that Joseph Smith's translation of Jesus' words here seems to follow Peter's words really closely.

Some people worry about this, thinking it must be evidence of plagiarism or something. If we assume that Joseph Smith was a charlatan, we might think so.

On the other hand, God doesn't seem to worry about His prophets plagiarizing each other. Prophets quote each other quite liberally.

So it can really only confirm the assumptions you start with, for Joseph Smith to have Jesus apparently quoting Peter. He was teaching the same principle Peter was teaching in Jerusalem about the same time.

For the reasons it so closely parallels the King James version of the Bible, Joseph Smith's formal education was limited to three years of what we now call elementary school. Beyond that, the Bible formed the basis of the bulk of his education in English and philosophy, at minimum.

Having done some translation myself, between English and Japanese, I know that, when I go out of my way to use vocabulary and phrasing I'm not familiar with, not only is it hard, but I tend to produce things that don't match existing idiom -- they sound strange, and they tend not to make much sense.

So I find myself both consciously and subconsciously resorting to idioms I have heard, and that means I often quote scriptures near verbatim when what I am translating is material that is scriptural and it happens to be scriptures that I remember.

For these reasons, among others, it does not surprise me that the Book of Mormon quotations from the Bible so closely parallel the KJT.

(afterthought)

PyRulez brings it to my attention that I let the overall focus of my response shift too much.

Here is a discussion on the Church website of the concept that all the prophets from the beginning have testified about Jesus Christ's coming and the work He would do:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1994/01/all-the-prophets-prophesied-of-christ?lang=eng

From that article, I would particularly note 1st Nephi chs. 8, 11-14, the prophetic dreams which Lehi and Nephi saw.

Also, Samuel the Lamanite, mentioned by PyRulez and others, is recorded in Helaman 8, ca. verses 16 and 18, to have talked about a number of prophets from Abraham down who prophesied of Jesus and of the redemption. If this is the Samuel that the Savior was mentioning, per your question and JBH's and PyRulz's comments, I would say that it is not just because Samuel taught the concept that all the prophets testified of Him, but because Samuel testified in great detail about the Savior's coming. Very definitely worth reading.

And, as I mentioned, many verses in the Pearl of Great Price, esp. the Book of Moses, two of which may be of particular interest:

Moses being told his ministry would symbolize the ministry of Jesus in Moses 1: 6.

And Enoch prophesying of Jesus Christ before the flood in (among other places) Moses 6: 51, 52. In this particular scripture, Enoch is explaining that Adam himself was taught, not only of the coming of a Savior who would redeem men from their sins, but of the name of the Savior.

(end afterthought)


Is there any historical evidence that would indicate where exactly the ark of the covenant is now located? The Ark of the Covenant was presumably located in the Holy of Holies in the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 A.D. when Titus conquered the city and destroyed the Temple.  Is there any historical indication of what happened to the Ark of the Covenant and the other items inside the Temple at that time, such as Aaron's budding staff, the two tablets of the testimony (10 Commandments), the Brazen Altar, and the Table of Bread?

Were the Jews able to hide these things or were they captured?

(Assuming, of course, that Indiana Jones and The Raiders of the Lost Ark was not a documentary.)

There are several historical hints to the location of the Ark.  Many of them are contradictory.  The problem isn't so much finding historical evidence that points to possible current locations of the Ark, it's that we have no way of determining which, if any, are valid, true, and reliable.

For example, ChristianAnswers.Net gives several possible locations.  The Church of Ethiopia claims to have it.  This is backed up by the writings of Abu Salih the Armenian in the late 1100s.  WND.com has a page indicating it might be beneath the temple Mount, and claims "compelling evidence" points to the theory.

However, the introductory statement to the article at WND.com pretty much backs up what my original paragraph claims.

  WASHINGTON

  It would almost inarguably be the greatest archaeological
  find in history.

  Movies have been made about it.

  Voluminous books have explored its whereabouts.

Those voluminous books are filled with historical and archaeological hints to the whereabouts.  But, to this day, if anyone truly knows where it is, they sure aren't offering proof.  Until the actual Ark is revealed, I doubt the world at large will know where it is, regardless of how many hints exist.  The volume of hints actually helps to ensure that it remains safe, hidden, as it lays all sorts of false trails for those searching for it.