How does the Hebrew Roots movement handle Paul's statements which imply Christians should not be enslaved to the Jewish Law? My understanding of the Hebrew Roots movement is that they celebrate feast days and more closely resemble Jewish traditions rather than "Christian" ones.  For example, most Christians would celebrate Christmas while Hebrew Roots would celebrate Hanukkah, though both believe in Christ as savior.  If I'm misunderstanding, feel free to set me straight.

My question is how the Hebrew Roots (denomination?) handles Paul's writings, since a lot of it seems to disapprove of following the traditionally Jewish practices.  For example, Galatians 4 says things like

  But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable forces ? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you (9-11) NIV

And verses 21 through 31 talk about being "children of promise" where those under the law are slaves to it.

Does the Hebrew Roots movement have an explanation for scriptures like these?

From what I gather, there are degrees of Hebrew Roots teaching.

Some believe in salvation 100% by the atoning work of Christ, while some believe in a combination of Christ's works and your works.

Some believe the Trinity is a pagan invention, while some understand Christ is the Son of God.

They tend to believe that even though you may be saved by grace, it is a sin to not follow Torah, including feasts, Sabbath, foods, etc.  They understand that Christ followed Torah and so should His followers.

So to the specific passage, they tend to believe it is misunderstood or mistranslated.  They cite the numerous other Pauline comments about the law.

Generally speaking, Hebrew Roots disavows the oral teachings, but instead focus on the written word (Torah).


Does the Catholic Church have a position on slavery reparations? Does the Catholic Church have an official position on slavery reparations?

  For those interested, I asked the same
  question
  on Mi Yodeya, which is the site for Judaism.

I do not think the Church has any official position, or any reason to have one.
In the link provided, Rev. Farrakhan is quoting a papal bull dating from 1452, that is essentially authorizing the Portuguese king, Alfonso V, to conduct a new crusade against the "Saracens" (probably the Ottoman Empire).
In it, there is a phrase in which the pope authorizes the king as follows:

With these words, by the Apostolic authority, we grant you permission to invade, conquer, capture, and subjugate those persons [the Saracens, unbelievers, and enemies of Christ], and reduce them to perpetual servitude, and also the lands, duchies, counties, principalities, and any other dominions, possessions, and goods of the same (my translation).

Or, see the Latin original:

Invadendi, conquerendi, expugnandi, et subiugandi, illorumque personas in perpetuam servitutem redigendi, regna quoque, Ducatus, Comitatus, Principatus, aliaque Dominia, possessiones, et bona huiusmodi, tibi et successoribus tuis Regibus Portugalliae, perpetuo applicandi, et appropriandi, ac in tuos, et eorundem successorum usus, et utilitates convertendi plenam, et liberam, auctoritate Apostolica, tenore praesentium concedimus facultatem.

Noteworthy is the phrase perpetuam servitutem. It is possible that the pope is authorizing a kind of serfdom, which was still all too common in Europe at the time. The term servitudo is ambiguous. In addition to "slavery," it could be a generic term for "subjugation" or "service."
Pope Nicholas actually uses the term in that way in the opening of the bull:

Dum diversas, nobis licet immeritis superna providentia commissi Apostolicae servitutis officii, curas, quibus quotidie Nos urgentibus angimur, sedula quoque hortatione pulsamur, in mente revolvimus.
As we turn over in our minds the various cares of the duty of Apostolic service, entrusted to us by celestial providence (much as we do not deserve it), by which we are urgently anguished, we are also moved by an insistent encouragement.

Regardless of Rev. Farrakhan's intentions, he does not seem to have been aware that this bull was written nearly a century before the Atlantic slave trade began. It was completely unrelated to the tragic deportation of Africans to the Americas.
That the pope should authorize a crusade of this kind (let alone authorize serfdom for the conquered peoples) is, naturally, an excessive mingling of temporal and spiritual power.
This bull cannot, however, be construed as a teaching or magisterial document. It has no weight whatsoever regarding the Church's teaching about serfdom and slavery, which did not develop until later, in the light of the Atlantic slave trade and the colonization of the Americas.


What reasons does Christianity give for "Why There Must Be A God?" I realize this question could also be addressed on Philosophy.SE, but I am very interested to get specifically the Christian perspective on this issue.

I was raised Catholic, but have left the Church in the last few years because of conflicts between my beliefs and the Church's. My lack of belief has definitely negatively affected my relationships with my family and I would really like a reason to believe once more. I suppose my real problem is that I have a hard time seeing a scenario, given what we have learned about the universe, that requires God to exist.

The question I would like to pose is, "According to Christianity, why must there be a God?"

There are several classical arguments for believing in God, including:

The cosmological argument, which says that (logically) everything exists because it is caused by something else or because it has always existed. It says that everything that has been caused by something else must be caused by something else and so on until you get to something that is without cause. A thing without cause must always have existed. The first cause is God.

The teleological argument argues that the universe looks as if it has a design and a purpose. It argues that this is because it has a designer who gave it a purpose. It asks for a reason for the order in the universe, for natural laws and principles, and finds an explanation in God.

The ontological argument argues that God must exist if you can imagine that He exists... I'm not sure why, to be honest.

The moral argument says that naturalistic explanations of morality, love etc. are inadequate to explain the existence of morality, love etc.

Each of these arguments has received considerable attention by philosophers and theologians, with counter-arguments and counter-counter arguments having been debated for centuries. At the very least, however, some version of these arguments may remove intellectual barriers to faith and position you to accept the possibility that God is real.

Of course, even if you accept the veracity of one of these arguments, the God in its conclusion isn't necessarily the God of Christianity. Nevertheless, the conclusion of these arguments does appear to be compatible with Christianity. Moreover, some writers suggest that the cumulative effect of the arguments is to validate the Christian world-view.

For most Christians, rational argument is only a part of why we believe. Instead, we choose Jesus on the basis of religious experience or because he fills an emotional or pragmatic need. In my view, nobody can be certain of God's existence (or non-existence), but you can look at the balance of probabilities. As such, we each have to take responsibility to look at the arguments in the light of our experience and then decide for ourselves what to believe.


Protestant numbering of the 10 Commandments With the exception of Lutherans (who apparently use the same numbering system for the Decalogue as Catholics) Do other Protestants have a consistent method for numbering the 10 commandments?

Catholics say the first 3 are about God. Then the last 7 about Man. Whereas, I've seen Protestants refer to this as the 4th commandment and then top it off with "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's stuff, and by stuff we also mean wife".

Also, other than keeping the Dec in the Decalogue, what is the reason behind munging the two separate commandments that are against adultery and expanding on the one commandment against profaning God?  Is there something in the Catholic teaching that favored the 3/7 split as a couple of the more beautiful numbers in Creation that was rejected by Protestants?

It basically comes down to tradition.

There are three major divisions of the Decalogue, in order of date. To compare these divisions, see Wikipedia. The dates are from this article.

Philonic (first century), in the writings of Philo and Josephus.
Talmudic (third century), in the Talmud.
Augustinian (fifth century), in the writings of Saint Augustine of Hippo. Also found in Codex Alexandrinus, which was first noted in 1886. (Codex Alexandrinus dates to the fifth century, too)

The Philonic division is used by most Orthodox and Protestant churches, except for Lutherans. It's the earliest recorded division, and very similar to the Talmudic division. The Talmudic division is the one adopted by Jews, and is probably based on earlier rabbinic tradition.

The Augustinian division came centuries later. It was chosen as the official Catholic division by the Council of Trent in the 16th century, and also by Luther at about the same time.

It's probable that the Early Church used the Philonic or a similar division of the Ten Commandments. That's probably also why most Protestants choose to follow it.


How widely accepted is platonism in Christianity? How widely is it thought everything in 'this World' reflects a greater reality where those things are perfect (in God)? That we might reach this perfection via beatification? And how widely might we take that claim; can a love of fiction reflect this higher reality? Can films? Can objects?

And if this reality (to be) is greater, to what degree would it be sensible to assume it (they) might be perfected? Are words, to quote Jonathan Edwards,like joy but "low shadows" of how great and perfectly satisfying the joy of the World to come is?

To use an example, I have often hoped (via reading CS Lewis's platonism inspired writings) that my love for Norse Myth, Tolien,'Dr Who' (a tv series) and my nerdy interest in collecting figures based on that program's chacters and monsters, might in fact be instigations of something. I feel, via such, as CS Lewis felt via fairytales, a desire for something 'ineffible'- sehnsucht. Wordsworth felt a similar desire through nature...but how many christians believe that these feelings are 'for something' that they reflect when, I have also heard it argued (by highly professional and 'high up' theologins and Christian teachers) that the only similarity between objects and enjoyments here and the World to come, is that both are enjoyable.
Merry Christmas, by the way, and to all a Happy New Year!

My limited understanding is that the early church fathers were as aware of platonic philosophy as Plato was of Jewish philosophy.

"The Fathers of the early Church sought to explain the striking resemblance between the doctrines of Plato and those of Christianity, principally by the acquaintance, which, as they supposed, that philosopher had with learned Jews and with the Jewish Scriptures during his sojourn in Egypt, but partly, also, by the universal light of a divine revelation through the "Logos," which, in and through human reason, "lighteth every man that cometh into the world," and which illumined especially such sincere and humble seekers after truth as Socrates and Plato before the incarnation of the Eternal Word in the person of Jesus Christ."

quoted from an article at the Christian Classical Ethereal Library.


Why do other religions exist if Yahweh is the one true God? God is omnipotent and loves his human children. If that is the case why does he allow the continued propagation and existence of other religions.
Does this signify that there is in fact no reason for God to mind the existence of other fictional Gods, which further implies that God actually doesn't care about us and that we are just created and left to our own devices?

The premise in the question :

  Does this signify that there is in fact no reason for God to mind the existence of other fictional Gods, which further implies that God actually doesn't care about us and that we are just created and left to our own devices?

. . is incorrect.

God has specifically stated :

  Thou shalt have no other gods before me [Exodus 20:2 Deuteronomoy 5:6 KJV]

This was addressed to the nation to which he chose to express the Law by the mediation of Moses. And the history of Israel contains many examples (the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities in particular) of God judging Israel when they followed other gods than himself.

  I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; [Exodus 20:5 KJV]

God does not 'allow the continued propagation and existence of other religions' as can be seen in history and as can be seen contemporaneously by the natural judgments that fall upon idolatrous nations.


Do a significant number of Biblical scholars presently support inerrancy? Biblical inerrancy is such a hot topic of debate these days that there is at least one website directly devoted to defending it (DefendingInerrancy.com), and of course many multiple Christian Apologetics and Biblical Authority organizations (notably ones like CARM and Answers In Genesis).

Is there a resource showing a significant number of contemporary (e.g. focusing within the last 100-200 years to present day) Bible Scholars who support evangelical inerrancy of the Bible?

I would think infallibility comes naturally with inerrancy, but perhaps not for everyone. Any comments on this would be welcome, too. The same may go for Verbal Plenary Inspiration (see related Q&A list, below).

Here are a few notable scholars I found who (AFAIK) fit the bill (mostly resulting from brief online searches):

Dr. Terry Mortenson
Dr. Gleason Archer
Dr. Norman Geisler
Dr. John Gerstner

Here are a few possibly helpful/related StackExchange resources:

What is verbal plenary inspiration and to what texts does it apply?
Which hermeneutical approaches support a literal interpretation of the creation?
From a Fundamentalist standpoint, what does the phrase "Inspired, infallible, inerrant Word of God" mean?
What are the main differences between the Catholic and Protestant definitions of Biblical inerrancy? (although, contrary to the accepted answer, elsewhere online I have seen Catholics describe Catholic Inerrancy as being very different from Christian Protestant Fundamental Inerrancy)

Even a "nearly" comprehensive list of inerrantist scholars from the past 100–200 years would be virtually impossible to compile and maintain.  However, the best list that I am aware of that approaches your criteria would be the signatories of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.  Over 200 evangelicals signed the document (PDF), and it includes figures such as:

Gleason L. Archer
Norman L. Geisler
R. C. Sproul
J. I. Packer
Francis Schaeffer

The first two of these are in your list, and the third is a prominent student of John Gerstner.  The statement was developed in 1978, and includes nineteen articles that carefully define what is meant by "inerrancy."  For example:

We affirm that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration. [Article VI]
We affirm that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses. [Article XI]

Of course, there were many other Protestant scholars who could be considered "inerrantist" who may not have signed the document due to some quibble with the language or simply lack of participation.  And it only includes those who were prominent and living during the 1970s.  But the Chicago Statement contains perhaps the best-known list of late 20th century evangelical inerrantist scholars.


What Biblical evidence is there that the Apostles feared for their lives after Jesus was crucified? What Biblical evidence is there that the Apostles feared for their lives after Jesus was crucified?  A good answer will cite published commentary and/or provide in depth analysis of specific passages.

Some commentators think so.  John 20:19 is the best indication:

  On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” [ESV]

Thomas Constable's analysis is common:

  The disciples had gathered in a secure room because they feared the Jewish authorities. The Jewish authorities had crucified their rabbi, so it was reasonable to think that they might come after them as well.

Adam Clarke suggests the fear was unfounded and due to lack of faith:

  We do not find that the Jews designed to molest the disciples [...] but, as they had proceeded so far as to put Christ to death, the faith of the disciples not being very strong, they were led to think that they should be the next victims if found.

John Gill points out that they might also have feared being arrested for having stolen the body:

  they might fear, that since they had took away their master's life, theirs must go next; and especially since it was rumoured abroad that they had stole away his body, they might be under the greater fear, that search would be made after them, and they be apprehended and brought into trouble on that account:


What is the basis that some Protestants teach the non-necessity of baptism for salvation? I have heard many Protestants say that "baptism is not necessary for salvation". They follow Paul I guess, who says all works including Baptism or circumcision are optional. But having read the following I am not sure how Protestants justify not doing baptism.

  Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of
  God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.
  John 3:5

  16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your
  sins away, calling on his name.'
  Acts 22:16

  he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and
  renewal by the Holy Spirit,
  Titus 3:5

Great commission was given to baptise disciples in all the nations:

  Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the
  name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
  Matthew 28:19

Many Church Fathers affirmed the necessity of baptism for salvation:

Origen:

  "It is not possible to receive forgiveness of sins without baptism"
  (Exhortation to the Martyrs 30 [A.D. 235]).

Hermas:

  "‘I have heard, sir,’ said I [to the Shepherd], ‘from some teacher,
  that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we
  went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former
  sins.’ He said to me, ‘You have heard rightly, for so it is’" (The
  Shepherd 4:3:1–2 [A.D. 80]).

Tertullian:

  "Without baptism, salvation is attainable by none" (Baptism 1 [A.D. 203])

Hippolytus:

  "Perhaps someone will ask, ‘What does it conduce unto piety to be
  baptized?’ In the first place, that you may do what has seemed good to
  God; in the next place, being born again by water unto God so that you
  change your first birth, which was from concupiscence, and are able to
  attain salvation, which would otherwise be impossible. For thus the
  [prophet] has sworn to us: ‘Amen, I say to you, unless you are born
  again with living water, into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy
  Spirit, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ Therefore,
  fly to the water, for this alone can extinguish the fire. He who will
  not come to the water still carries around with him the spirit of
  insanity for the sake of which he will not come to the living water
  for his own salvation" (Homilies11:26 [A.D. 217]).

Even Martin Luther affirmed the necessity of Baptism

  "Baptism is no human plaything but is instituted by God himself.
  Moreover, it is solemnly and strictly
  commanded that we must be baptized or we shall not be saved. We are
  not to regard it as an indifferent matter, then, like putting on a new
  red coat. It is of the greatest importance that we regard baptism as
  excellent, glorious, and exalted."
  Large Catechism 4:6

So it baffles me how many Protestants teach that it is not necessary for salvation. How would they address the above? What is their biblical basis for this belief?

It seems to me that many people accept the free gift of Jesus on the cross because they do not want to go to hell. Even though they may have some doubts, they choose to believe and become Christians because the stakes are so high. Protestants exhort them not to trust in universalism but in fact repent of their sins and ask for forgiveness in order to get saved. Similarly, then, wouldn't the same arguments apply to baptism? Where is the difference? The same Church fathers and universal traditions in the first few centuries they use to establish the trustworthiness of the books in their canon also affirms the necessity of baptism.  And yet they confidently tell people it's totally optional?

Why do Protestants teach the non-necessity of baptism for salvation?

Those who see baptism as something additional to salvation might use the following verses;

  Luke 23:43  And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day
  shalt thou be with me in paradise.

The thief on the cross was not baptized.

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

Paul did baptize a few but was not sent to baptize which would indicate that the act was peripheral to salvation.

  Ephesians 2:8-9  For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not
  of yourselves: it is the gift of God:  Not of works, lest any man
  should boast.

Baptism can be considered a "work" (something a person does) and therefore inconsistent with salvation by faith.

  Acts 16:30-31  And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to
  be saved?   And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou
  shalt be saved, and thy house.

Although baptism can follow quickly, the actual process of salvation is never cited as requiring baptism.

The often cited verses used to favor baptism can also be seen in a different light.

  John 3:5  Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a
  man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the
  kingdom of God.

When Jesus talks to Nicodemus, the context is physical human birth and spiritual (born again) birth, the "water" and the spirit.

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

Ananias came and restored to Paul his sight. He then told him the purpose Jesus had for him. He then summarized for Paul that he should be baptized, wash away his sins, and call on the name of the Lord. This is not necessarily a description of a salvation process.

  Titus 3:5  Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but
  according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration,
  and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

The "washing" here is the baptism (immersion) in the Holy Spirit that happens when a person is saved.

  Matthew 28:19  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them
  in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

This "commission" was given to the disciples in anticipation of the Kingdom activities expected of the nation of Israel. If it were a universal activity, Paul would have been instructed to include it in his apostleship to the gentiles. In any event, it is still not described as an integral part of the salvation process.

Many find the views of church "fathers" to be compelling, however as far as the Bible goes, it is difficult to find any specific instruction of baptism as essential for salvation.


Where was Catholic doctrine defined before the Catechism? Apparently the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) has only existed since 1992.

Was Catholic doctrine clearly defined in a specific set of sources before CCC? What would a priest have referred to in earlier times, if he had needed to check the stance of the Church on a specific detail?

Is it possible/practical/easy to find out what Catholic Church taught of a specific subject at a specific time in history?

First, the history of the catechism is substantially longer than just 19 years! The catholic catechism dates for hundreds of years - one of the earlier "official" ones was promulgated in 1566.

Catechizing has been a long-standing practice (arguably, God told the Israelites to do that when He told them to write His law on the door posts and tell it to their children).


In Psalms 2:7, does the expression 'this day' forbid the thought that Jesus is eternal? Psalms 2:7: 'Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee'

Does the expression 'this day' forbid the thought that Jesus is eternal?

Sorry for being not an expert, but that expression makes me think that the relation between Jesus and God was different before 'this day', maybe before that 'this day' Jesus was not the Son of God, and therefore Jesus is not eternal.

Peace be with you.

 And, overall, for those who like to know the denomination to which the asker belongs, I inform I'm a Christian and Adoptionist.

The Bible suggest otherwise. In the New Testament this passage was viewed as a prophecy of the resurrection.

Acts 13:32-34 NLT

“And now we are here to bring you this Good News. The promise was made to our ancestors, and God has now fulfilled it for us, their descendants, by raising Jesus. This is what the second psalm says about Jesus: ‘You are my Son. Today I have become your Father. ’ For God had promised to raise him from the dead, not leaving him to rot in the grave. He said, ‘I will give you the sacred blessings I promised to David.’


Are there disadvantages to Chronological Study Bibles? I recently bought a copy of The Chronological Study Bible. According to the preface, the Bible takes all of the verses of the KJV bible and rearranges them (with some debates on certain verses) into chronological order.

I've read through the KJV Bible a couple times in years past, but have pretty much always gotten lost in terms of the time period (i.e reading was more mechanical than understanding.)

Clearly most study Bibles are not in chronological order. Why is this? What are the disadvantages of arranging a Bible in Chronological order?

From my theological vantage-point, I always wish to emphasize that the Bible is not a single book, but a collection of many books written by different people, at different times, and with differing opinions. When you jumble all that together, you effectively uproot every verse of the Bible from its literary context and risk taking verses out of context. This is the same reason that I personally don't find "harmonization" (e.g. of the Gospels) very helpful, because each Gospel has its own particular emphases and literary style.
Moreover, these Bibles only consider the narrative chronology and don't pay heed to compositional chronology. For instance, much of Chronicles runs parallel to Samuel–Kings, but Chronicles hails from the Persian period, whereas Sam–Kngs hails from the Babylonian period—but both talk about events from the Monarchy. Likewise, the narratives of Daniel (Babylonian per.) and Jonah (Assyrian per.) were most likely written well into the Persian (Jonah) or Hellenistic (Daniel) periods.
That said, there are certainly advantages to getting a "birds-eye" view of the chronology of the Bible—and a chronological study Bible may be helpful in that respect. You may also consider buying a good single-volume commentary (Like this one) or an accessible introduction to each testament.
N.B. on Canonical Order
The New Testament Canon
The New Testament Canon follows this order: 1) Gospels (earliest-to-latest), 2) Acts, 3) The Letters of Paul to Churches (arranged longest-to-shortest), 4) Letters of Paul to individuals, 5) Catholic Epistles (longest-to-shortest), 6) the Apocalypse of John.
The Hebrew Bible/Old Testament:
The Hebrew Bible/Old Testament varies depending on the church/religious group. Jews follow their traditional order of 1) Torah, 2) Prophets, 3) 'Writings' (Where the Torah is the Pentateuch, the prophets are the 'historical books' [minus Chronicles] and the Major prophets, and the 'writings' are the Psalms, minor prophets and the rest [including Chronicles, which is at the end]). Protestants use the same books as the Jews, but put them in order by genre: 1) Pentateuch, 2) Historical Books, 3)Major Prophets, 4) Minor Prophets. Note that the Christian OT always ends with Malachi, because it dovetails so nicely with Matthew. Catholic and Orthodox Christians follow the same basic order that the Protestants do, but include books that the Protestants removed from their Bibles (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ben Sirah, etc.).


Did the pre-Christian Greek Bible contain only the five books of Moses? The New Testament quotes portions of the Greek Old Testament (known as the Septuagint, or LXX for short), including portions of books beyond the Pentateuch (or five books of Moses), some of which are of a distinct tradition than that of the Hebrew (or what is loosely called the Masoretic tradition).1

Yet it is claimed by Jews,2 as well as others, that the Septuagint was originally only a translation of the five books of Moses, not the entire Bible.

Question: If this is so, what exactly were the New Testament authors quoting?

Thanks in advance.

Footnotes

1 e.g. Mt 9:13 "mercy" (LXX) / cf. Hos 9:6 "goodness" (Masor); Mt 9:13 "perfected praise" (LXX) / cf. Ps 8:2 "ordained strength" (Masor). See also Mk 7:6-8/Isa 29:13; Lk 3:5-6/Isa 40:4-5; Rom 2:24/Isa 52:5 | It's been estimated that out of all the quotations of the Old Testament in the New, 340 are from the LXX, and 33 from the Masoretic (see G. Archer and G. C. Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey, p. 25-32).

2 The 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia (Bible Translations, under 'Septuagint') states, "According to Aristeas, the Pentateuch was translated at the time of Philadelphus, the second Ptolemy (285-247 B.C.), which translation was encouraged by the king and welcomed by the Jews of Alexandria. Grätz ("Gesch. der Juden," 3d ed., iii. 615) stands alone in assigning it to the reign of Philometor (181-146 B.C.). Whatever share the king may have had in the work, it evidently satisfied a pressing need felt by the Jewish community, among whom a knowledge of Hebrew was rapidly waning before the demands of every-day life. ¶ It is not known when the other books of the Bible were rendered into Greek. The grandson of Ben Sira (132 B.C.), in the prologue to his translation of his grandfather's work, speaks of the "Law, Prophets, and the rest of the books" as being already current in his day. A Greek Chronicles is mentioned by Eupolemus (middle of second century B.C.); Aristeas, the historian, quotes Job; a foot-note to the Greek Esther seems to show that that book was in circulation before the end of the second century B.C.; and the Septuagint Psalter is quoted in I Macc. vii. 17. It is therefore more than probable that the whole of the Bible was translated into Greek before the beginning of the Christian era (Swete, "An Introduction to the O. T. in Greek," ch. i.). The large number of Greek-speaking Jewish communities in Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia, Asia Minor, and northern Africa must have facilitated its spread in all these regions. The quotations from the Old Testament found in the New are in the main taken from the Septuagint; and even where the citation is indirect the influence of this version is clearly seen. This will also explain in a measure the undoubted influence of the Septuagint upon the Syriac translation called the "Peshiṭta.""

No, the entirety, more or less,1 of the Old Testament seems to have had a Greek version or translation since the second century at least, based on the translator's Prologue to the Greek version of Ben Sira (a.k.a Wisdom of Sirach and Ecclesiasticus).
In a collection of papers on the Book (from 2006),2 it is taken for granted that the rest of the Books of the Old Testament already existed by the second century B.C., in what we would (loosely) call a Septuagint version, that is, the Greek Old Testament.
Discussing the translator's own feeling that the Greek into which he was translating the original Hebrew did not have "the same force" (ισοδψναμει) (Prologue) as the original language itself (the Hebrew), the author of one paper3 writes:

In [his prologue] the grandson of Ben Sira brings the Biblical books as an example for the difference between original and translation:

ου μονον δε  ταυτα αλλα και αυτος ο μονος και αι προφητειαι και τα λοιπα των βιβλιων ου μικραν εχει την διαφοραν τον εαυτοις λεγομενα ("That is true not only for this book but also the Law itself, the Prophets, and the rest of the books differ no little in the original.")

The way the Hebrew original is introduced at the end of the argument shows that the comparison proceeds from the Greek and not from the Hebrew version of the Law, the Prophecies, and the remaining books. This proves, that the grandson of Ben Sira believed his Greek readers to be familiar with the Greek version of these books, but ignorant of the Hebrew text.

(emphasis mine)
I think from this we have a strong case for the existence of an entire Greek Old Testament, not just the Law or Torah; as well as a readership aquainted with it, and even ignorant of the orginal Hebrew (if not Hebrew itself, then at least the original Hebrew versions themselves). We are left to opine as to who this readership is, although Alexandrian or Diaspora Jews (cf. Jn 7:35; Jas 1:1; 1 Pet 1:1) fit the bill quite well.4

1 Unfortunately, based on the following alone as the evidence, we cannot be more specific. In the least, every section of the Old Testament was completed.
2 Studies in the Book of Ben Sira (Géza G. Xeravits, Jószef Zsengellér), 2006.
3 ibid. p. 51. "The Pre-eminence of the Hebrew Language and the Emerging Concept of the 'Ideal Text' in Late Second Temple Jerusalem" (a paper by Stefan Schorch)—I had to transcribe the quote myself, so I couldn't include breathing marks and so forth, whereas the original has such. The author seems to have made a typographical error, having "Prophecies" were it should say "Prophets"(especially in concordance with what precedes it, and the fact that the first letter is upper-case. He also omits a what would be a heplful ellipsis after the Greek; the rest of the sentence continues: "[have no small difference,] when they are spoken in their own language."
4 "[I]...using great watchfulness and skill in that space to bring the book to an end, and set it forth for them also, which in a strange country are willing to learn, being prepared before in manners to live after the law" would seem to imply a Jewish readership.


Catholicism: How to treat beggars? My country is full of beggars asking for money, sometimes it's kinda family controlled business, the parents ask their children to beg for money and then steal the money from them, some beggars are really poor, others are just scammers.

But you don't have anyway of telling, the vast majority of people either yell at them or ignore them or tell them to go away or act as if they never saw them.

I don't imagine that one could pay each and every beggar he sees on a daily basis, and the people in my country aren't rich and there are too many beggars out there.

From a roman catholic point of view, how should common people treat beggars? Is ignoring them a sin? What does the church and saints have to say about that?

Here's an example from St. Robert Bellarmine's life (ch. 30 of 35 Doctors of the Church):

  Not only did he give freely to those who asked, but he remembered those who were too embarrassed to ask, too reserved to beg. He sent out men to find such cases and helped them. He was often “taken in” by beggars who were not deserving. Some came back in disguise to receive a second alms. He knew this, but his principle was that it is better to be deceived a hundred times than miss one genuinely in need. No wonder the people of Rome called him “the new Poverello,” referring of course to St. Francis of Assisi, his patron.


What is the scriptural basis, if any, for the Catholic teaching that the homosexual tendency is of itself not a sin? The Catholic Church teaches that the homosexual tendency is not a sin:

  Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a
  sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic
  moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an
  objective disorder. - e.g. in  Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic
  Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, 3, 1 October 1986
  | CDF.

What is the scriptural basis, if any, for the Catholic teaching that the homosexual tendency is of itself not a sin?

The Catholic teaching that the homosexual tendency is not a sin is based on the universal principle that sin requires the use of the will--you cannot sin by accident.  See ST II I, q. 71, a. 5, objection & reply 2; ST II I, q. 75, a. 2 & 3; and CCC 1849-1851.

This is a commonsensical principle of human responsibility that is presupposed by scripture (and every legal system in the world).  Although, like many other such principles, scripture does not philosophically define this relation of will/volition to sin, we can see it underlying scriptural passages in many places.  For example:

Joshua 20:1-9 illustrates the mitigation of sin and culpability when someone causes a death by accident.
2 Corinthians 5:10 says that we will be judged for what we do.  Personal action is involved in sin and judgment, and personal action requires an act of the will.
Without knowing and willing what one is doing, sin cannot exist (Romans 5:13, Romans 7:7).
Jesus asks that his executioners be forgiven and provides only one reason: they do not know what they are doing (Luke 23:34).


A question about Faith and Law before Sinai William Huntington (1745 – 1813) preached in London to many hundreds, sometimes thousands, in the latter part of his life. After his death a number of preachers followed in his footsteps, such as William Gadsby, John Kershaw, William Tiptaft and, notably, J C Philpot. The movement changed its name in order to separate from what was considered erroneous and in order to define what was seen to be true and the names ‘Strict Baptist’ then ‘Gospel Standard Strict Baptist’ were applied.
Huntington, and those who followed, denied that the Christian was under law (whether ‘moral’ or ‘ceremonial’) and he advanced a variety of texts to support this : I am crucified with Christ, Galatians 2:20 ; Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believeth, Romans 10:4 ; ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ, Romans 7:4.
Aside from these texts (which are not the subject of this question) Huntington also argued with regard to Old Testament believers - who lived before Moses' delivery of the law, and before the enunciating of the ten commandments to Israel at Sinai.
If no law had yet been delivered, he argues, how then did these saints live ? Such as Abel, Enoch, Noah, Job, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph ? They are specifically said to be justified and accounted righteous in the sight of God, but how did they live, thereafter, without law to guide them ?
In his book Law and Grace Contrasted Huntington says :

By faith Enoch had this testimony that he pleased God, Hebrews 11:5 ; but without faith it is impossible to please him, Hebrews 11:6. Then faith is a rule that God approves of, and is pleased with. If the ten commandments be the believer’s only rule of a righteous life, what then of Abel who obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts, Hebrews 11:4, an entire dispensation before the commandments were given ?
Noah, who became heir of the righteousness of faith, Hebrews 11:7, was certainly without the legal rule of works, when he prepared an ark and condemned the world, by faith, without a law to guide him.
Abraham, the friend of God and the father of the faithful and heir of the world must also walk uncertainly [if only law could truly guide him (edit)].

I think it is important to notice that Mr Huntington is not arguing about justification by faith (and how it is achieved), he is arguing regarding a sanctified life, thereafter.
This argument, regarding saints who died before the law was laid down, is that which engages me and I would be interested to know what Protestants have made of it.
I am aware that some Protestants have not accepted what Mr Huntington preached and indeed many have called him, inaccurately, an ‘Antinomian’.
But what do they make of this argument regarding Old Testament saints ?

"saints who died before the law was laid down" is the key issue with this question.  Does "laid down" mean first created, or formalized in writing.

I know you asked for a Protestant position, but it's good to know what people believed before that too.

In particular, Commandments/Laws followed by Avraham - Mi Yodeya, in the Judaism SE site indicates that Jews believe the Law existed in oral form long before it was put into writing by Moses.  This possibly includes even the holy days and feasts such as Passover (long before the actual Passover event).

Chabad.org, How Did the Torah Exist Before it Happened? - Questions & Answers, says:

  This is discussed in many places in Talmud and Midrash. Not only Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but also Noah and even Adam knew the Torah. Concerning Noah, the Torah itself writes clearly that G‑d told him to take onto his ark "of the animal which is ritually pure (tahor), seven, seven." Apparently, he was expected to know for himself that pigs are not ritually pure and cows are.

  What was the Torah before it was given to us? The Torah is G‑d's wisdom, as He considers Himself, as He considers us and as He considers His world. It contains the wisdom with which He creates the world and manages it. Think of a concept paper that a producer might write before developing a video game or some other such product. The Torah contains exactly that (and much more1). Each of the lofty souls we mentioned was able to attain insight into this wisdom and thereby know the hiddenmost secrets of the universe.

As for "Protestants" that's a large category, with many conflicting beliefs.

Some definitely go along with the Jewish teaching, believing that God's Law was in effect before Moses wrote it down, with only the ceremonial and civil laws being created specifically for Israel following the Exodus as part of the "old" Covenant.

Here are a few examples:

Were the Ten Commandments in Force Before Moses? gives examples of each of the Ten Commandments being obeyed before Moses recorded them.

Did Abraham Keep the Same Commandments God Gave to Moses? | United Church of God

10 Commandments Moses - Life, Hope & Truth


Could Hell be seen as a reward? I live in a very atheistic land. People hate religion because the main religion in my province has abused the people. Thus sometimes when I speak to friends and coworkers I present Hell as follows.

We have been designed to love (worship) God and find our joy in Him. Heaven is where we get to love Him perfectly and enjoy Him perfectly. But a non-believer does not want to love God or enjoy Him. The non-believer wants to be God for himself.

So if heaven is the place where God is at the center and all our attention is turned towards Him, it would go against the desire of the unbeliever's heart for God to send him to heaven. So if a person goes through life rejecting God, Hell is the place where God does not intervene (no common grace). Then does God offer the object of desire of the rebel heart?

I understand that Hell is a punishment, but does this explanation of Hell fit with the biblical teaching?

The Christian definition notion of hell itself already assumes in itself a belief in the Christian doctrines. As such, most atheists have exactly zero fear of hell, and it is considered merely an invention, typically either of fear or of control (depending on who you ask). As such, it isn't the atheists desire to exist in an afterlife without God - simply the entire notion of the afterlife is rejected.

So in answer: no, it would not be a "reward"; the mere fact of existing and have been wrong would be enough to make it miserable, even before the torment. But as I stress, atheists (and I include myself in this very completely) have no fears over this hell, or any other by any other religion. For example, I assume most Christians do not fear the hell of Jaunism, Taoism or Zoroastrianism. The atheist merely fears one less hell than most believers. To emphasise: it is not the desire of the atheist to endure an afterlife without God; the afterlife itself is unwanted.

What the atheist expects is simple: to cease to be, on the event of expiration on this world. It doesn't relate to the question, but a common follow-on question to this is "but if there is no afterlife, what reason is there to be ethical in this world?" to which the answer is simple: "there is just this world; and that by itself is plenty of reason to be ethical and face the consequences of our actions in this world that we share". Which usually works out pretty well for everyone.

Of course, if some God is truly fair to all, but ironic, they'll scupper everyone, as proposed by David Mitchell.


Do any denominations object to writing/ saying "the god" instead of "God"? For example, the King James Version translates Gen. 1:1 as,

  In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

If I translate it as,

  In the beginning, the god created the heavens and the earth.

Would any denomination object to that translation?

No denomination I know of would not object to that text. The reason being that using "God" refers specifically to the god of Israel and Christians, whereas "the god" refers to some god creating the heavens and the earth, meaning that "the god" only gains meaning from context. Should this excerpt be taken without its reference (Genesis 1:1) and its reader not knowing it was from the Bible, it would look like it was simply referring to a god, not the God.


Some questions concerning Aramaic in the Old Testament I'm wondering which parts of the bible were written in Aramaic? I believe certain parts of Daniel were written in Aramaic. Which parts exactly and is there anywhere else in the bible that were written in Aramaic?

I'm also wondering if the parts of the bible which were written in the Aramaic language also make use of Aramaic script in the original manuscripts, or do they use Hebrew script instead? (So as to fit in with the rest of the scriptures) If this is the case, it would be possible for someone who doesn't understand Hebrew or Aramaic to read the original manuscripts and not realise that the language had changed, because the script is the same.

Daniel Chapter 2 from the second part of verse 4 through the end of Chapter 7 is in written in the Aramaic language and with same script as the Hebrew scriptures. There are several less substantial occurences of Aramaic in the Hebrew scriptures detailed here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Aramaic. All of the Hebrew scriptures are written with the same script.


Why was it not necessary to break Jesus' legs during crucifixion? Jesus was put to death by crucifixion, between two "real" criminals, on a Friday.

Because the Jews wanted the execution to be over by the Sabbath, they had the Roman soldiers "speed up" the process by breaking the legs of the two (still-living) criminals. But they didn't need to do this to Jesus because he was already dead, meaning that his body was "whole" when it was buried.

Why did Jesus die before the other two, who "survived" him? Was it because he was in worse shape than them? (Of note is the fact the he fainted while carrying the cross.)

The scripture says that Jesus "gave up his spirit" in Mt 27:50 and Jn 19:30 (it is implied in Luke). The description in John is particularly enlightening because it says that Jesus got a drink and gave up his spirit because he knew "that everything had now been finished, and so that scripture would be fulfilled". Jesus chose to give up his life at that moment, and he chose precisely the right moment in order to fulfill prophecy. It was not a matter of fitness or being in shape, but rather fulfilling God's will. This is further reinforced by the fact that before letting go of his life he said, "It is finished".

From a physiological perspective, it's also reasonable that Jesus would die faster because of what he suffered prior to crucifixion. He was beaten (Mt 26:67-68), flogged (Mt 27:26), given a crown of thorns (Mt 27:28-29), and struck over the head repeatedly (Mt 27:30).


Which German Bible translation was Joseph Smith fond of? In some of Joseph Smith Jr.'s last speeches, he mentioned a German translation of the Bible which he was fond of. E.g., he says in the King Follet discourse (emphasis added):

  I have an old edition of the New Testament in the Latin, Hebrew, German and Greek languages. I have been reading the German, and find it to be the most [nearly] correct translation, and to correspond nearest to the revelations which God has given to me for the last fourteen years. (History of the Church 6:307)

Later on in this same speech, he says (emphasis added):

  In the German, the text bears me out the same as the revelations which I have given and taught for the last fourteen years on that subject. I have the testimony to put in their teeth. My testimony has been true all the time. You will find it in the declaration of John the Baptist. (Reads from the German.) John says, "I baptize you with water, but when Jesus comes, who has the power (or keys), he shall administer the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost." Where is now all the sectarian world? And if this testimony is true, they are all damned as clearly as anathema can do it. I know the text is true. I call upon all you Germans who know that it is true to say, Aye. (Loud shouts of "Aye.") (History of the Church 3:316)

In another address shortly before he was murdered (dated May 12, 1844), he says:

  The Germans are an exalted people. The old German translators are the most nearly correct -- most honest of any of the translators; and therefore I get testimony to bear me out in the revelations that I have preached for the last fourteen years. The old German, Latin, Greek and Hebrew translations all say it is true: they cannot be impeached, and therefore I am in good company. (History of the Church 6:363)

Which German translation is Joseph referring to? I am not familiar with the different translations of the Bible, having only ever read the King James Version in English. According to Wikipedia, there are several German translations of the Bible. I am interested in this specific version which Joseph owned. Which version is he referring to and where can I get a copy?

I've always believed and heard this to be the Martin Luther translation of the German Bible.  While I've not yet found a completely authoritative statement on this being the case, I currently believe it to be true.  I think we may need get into his journals to probably get to the root of this. It may be possible that someone has written a research paper on this within the BYU libraries, but I have yet to put my finger on it.
One leading example is from Joseph Smith, Jr.'s journal (Journal, December 1842–June 1844; Book 1, 21 December 1842–10 March 1843) wherein the footnote references the more correct Martin Luther’s translation of Matthew 24:2 whereas Joseph refers simply to it as the "German bible."  This tacitly gives us a link:
JOURNAL:

...not one stone shall not be thrown down.— German bible says which
shall not be broken...

FOOTNOTES:

[96] Martin Luther’s translation of Matthew 24:2 reads: “Es wird hier nicht ein Stein auf dem andern bleiben, der nicht zerbrochen
werde.” (Die Bibel, Matthai 24:2.)
Die Bibel , oder die ganze heilige Schrift des alten und neuen Testaments, nach der deutschen Uebersetzung D. Martin Luthers. Halle
(Saale): der Cansteinischen Bibel-Anstalt, 1826.

Granted this is not a direct statement, but I think the Martin Luther translation was considered to be the gold standard and most printed version for the German Bible at this time.
Martin Luther is again referenced in Revelation, 9 March 1833 [D&C 91] (Re: Apocrypha); See Historical Introduction:

Martin Luther, in his 1534 translation of the Bible, however, placed
the books of the Apocrypha at the end of the Old Testament and
explained...

Again by extrapolation it puts him in and around the "right place at the right time."
It also appears that Luther's translation was directly used in some other translations and/or influenced other translators, so at the end of the day Luther is the prime mover of the German bible, as per the Wikipedia article to which you referred.
Finally, in one of your quotations above, the author of the wiki article at this site attributes the German translation directly to Martin Luther (yet I see no actual authoritative citation for his source; perhaps basing it off of "common knowledge" such as my sentiment?):

Joseph Smith said of Martin Luther’s German translation, “I have an
old edition of the New Testament in the Latin, Hebrew, German and
Greek languages. I have been reading the German, and find it to be the
most [nearly] correct translation, and to correspond nearest to the
revelations which God has given to me for the last fourteen years.”
(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pg. 349)

JBH adds an interesting observation in his answer that I thought I'd consolidate into this answer and add a little to assist the content:
Val Hinckley Sederholm's blog notes [Archive]:

I'm intrigued by the Prophet's polyglot New Testament consulted in the 7 April 1844 general conference address (King Follett Sermon) and in a 12 May 1844 sermon. "A Bible in various tongues" is how visitor Josiah Quincy described it. For some Saints the book became an iconic way of remembering Brother Joseph. A lithograph depicting the April 1844 general conference shows the Prophet with his Testament on the pulpit; the book even surfaces in Wilford Woodruff’s dreams: "I met with Br Joseph Smith in the Congregation of the Saints. He had his old Hebrew and Jerman Bible, and preached to the Saints." As the dream continues, Joseph, "thronged by people," lifts a curtain into "another room and there he was going to teach the people" (19 August 1844; 2: 449, in ed., S. Kinney; Josiah Quincy, Figures of the Past).
Note what Brother Woodruff calls the book: "his old Hebrew and Jerman Bible."
Thomas Bullock reports Joseph as saying: “I have an old book [Clayton: ‘N.T.’] in the Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and German” (7 April 1844). The book comprises “the old German [Luther’s original], Latin, Greek, and Hebrew translations” (Bullock Report, 8 April 1844). The Prophet further terms his Testament “the oldest book in the world” (Woodruff Journal and Clayton Report for 7 April), which matches Samuel W. Richards’s characterization of it as “an ancient German Bible” (12 May 1844). Only one polyglot Testament fits the description and that is Elias Hutter’s Novum Testamentum harmonicum (Nuremberg, 1602).  (emphasis by JBH)

(Elias Hutter can also be found as Elia Huttero (aka Latin: Hvttero) (Archive.org search) and each available scanned book may be viewed here: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Romans
– These were made available November 25, 2014, while the blog post was from March 2, 2010 so these works were not available online at the time of blogging.)
All the arrows, so far, seem to converge on Martin Luther...


Are there any Messianic references in the OT apocrypha? Are there any references to Jesus / the Messiah in the OT apocrypha?

(See example of book list here.)

Not part of my definition of apocrypha, but reading Wisdom leaves you with a distinct feeling that that the messiah is coming and he's going to be very badly treated.
I won't post all of Wisdom 2 here, but make sure if you read it, that you don't cut up the verses, these are bad people talking bad things about a righteous Man.

For, not thinking rightly, they said among themselves:

(Wisdom 2:1 NABRE)
But, basically, as some English monks point out, the entire Bible points to Christ in some way:

In Tobit, He is the Messenger of New Life.
In Judith, He is Weakness Turned into Victory.
In Esther*, He is our Advocate.
In 1 and 2 Maccabees, He is the Leader who dies for God’s law.
In Wisdom, He is the emanation of God’s thought.
In Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), Jesus is our security.
In Baruch, He is the Mercy from the Eternal One.
In Daniel*, Jesus is the Fourth Man in the fiery furnace.

*I know these aren't 100% Deuterocanonical, but they're in here for completion.


Which day of Creation Week were the stars created? This question is directed to those who believe the entire universe was created just 6000 years ago (approx) during "creation week" of Gen 1.
Question: On which day was the universe (all things outside planet earth, ie sun moon and stars) created? Was it day 1 or day 4?

If the answer is day 1, then presumably this means that "heaven and earth" (Gen 1:1) does not include the sun moon and stars (Gen 1:14-16)
If the answer is day 4, then what does Gen 1:1 mean?

The text of Genesis 1, literally interpreted, clearly includes the stars in the list of things created on day 4, along with the sun and moon. Even older translations like the KJV include "stars" in verse 16. Planets in ancient cosmologies (even up to medieval times) would have usually been considered a subset of "stars".
In verse 1, "the heaven" does not necessarily include stars. In the original ancient Hebrew cosmology it would have referred to the "vault" over the earth (or "ocean of heaven"). Those attempting to apply it to modern cosmology might consider it to be "space". Young Earth Creationists do not have a fixed viewpoint on this as I understand it.
You mention Creation Ministries International (CMI) in comments. CMI takes Genesis days very, very literally. It's basically their defining doctrine. I have not been able to locate a definitive statement from CMI about what day the stars were created, but since Genesis states it very clearly as day 4 I would be utterly astonished if CMI did not agree. "The universe" can exist without stars, so saying "the universe was created on day 1" does not have to mean the stars were also.


Is "Bible In a Minute" accurate? The Bible In a Minute video by Barats and Bereta has been enormously popular on YouTube, with 3.6 million viewers. The video quite literally goes through the Bible in less than a minute.

Obviously, the video leaves out a lot. But as for what is included:

Is it accurate?
Is it enough? Consider someone who knows nothing of the Bible but watches the video carefully over and over, even frame by frame. Can they learn enough of the Bible to become a Christian?

For a <60 second list of excerpted chapter titles, sure.
Without any mention of what the "blood" mentioned at the cross acomplished or why Jesus was for sake -- without any mention of faith or repentence? No not hardly. Of course our salvation is not based on knowledge or amount of information we have anyway and God could choose to convict somebody of their sin and instill in them a faith that the things mentioned (resurrection was in there) were somehow on their behalf, but it's a bit of a stretch.

That is a Bible presentation, not a Gospel presentation.


What are the 19 gifts of the Spirit, as listed by Leslie Flynn? I recently heard a preacher say there are 19 gifts of the Spirit.  That specific number seems to derive from this book by Leslie Flynn.  Most lists, including even those that reference this book, tend to list 16 gifts (example), but I did find one list with 21 gifts.  I was unable to locate Flynn's list, however.  What are the 19 gifts, as defined by Flynn?

From the table of contents of the book you linked to*, the 19 are:

The Apostolic Gift
Prophecy
Evangelism
Shepherding
Teaching
Exhortation
Knowledge
Wisdom
Helps
Hospitality
Giving
Government
Showing Mercy
Faith
Discernment
Miracles
Healing
Tongues
Interpretation

*To see the list yourself, click on the link to the amazon product listing, click the book cover, then click the link for the table of contents.


Is there a New Testament parallel to cities of refuge? Many things in the Old Testament have a New Testament parallel. For example, the OT has animal sacrifices. In the NT, Jesus is described as the Lamb of God, sacrificed for sins.

My question: I find cities of refuge mentioned in Numbers 35. Have published commentators found any NT spiritual parallel to this idea?

Yes.

  Hebrews 6:16 (KJV)
  That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:

Matthew Henry's commentary on this verse points to Jesus as our present refuge:

  They are such as have fled for refuge to the hope set before them.
  Under the law there were cities of refuge provided for those who were
  pursued by the avenger of blood. Here is a much better refuge prepared
  by the gospel, a refuge for all sinners who shall have the heart to
  flee to it; yea, though they have been the chief of sinners.


Did Judas betray Jesus willfully? Luke 22:3 (NIV) Then Satan entered Judas, called Iscariot, one of the Twelve.

Does this verse imply that

Judas had no more control over his own actions as he was possessed by the devil.
Judas yielded himself to the temptation of 30 pieces of silver offered by the priests for betraying Jesus.

The first option would mean that Judas was possessed and hence had no control over his own will whereas the second option would mean that the betrayal was a self-willed one.

Just because it was already prophesied, does not mean that Judas did not make a conscious choice. A man can most definitely choose to be used by Satan or by the Holy Spirit. Judas, by his actions, was already choosing, as he was choosing to steal from the purse.(John 12:6) This showed that even though he was with Jesus, the Holy Spirit was not working within him. He made a series of bad decisions and the devil took the opportunity.

God is blamed for many things, but just because He allows it to happen, does not mean He causes it to happen. Many times we put ourselves in this position. Isaiah 59:1-2 says:

Surely the arm of the Lord is not too short to save,
    nor his ear too dull to hear.
But your iniquities have separated
    you from your God;
your sins have hidden his face from you,
    so that he will not hear.

Judas put himself in this position. In a position where God allowed Satan use Judas.


What are some uses of the Magnificat, Benedictus and Nunc Dimittis in the Eastern Rites? I'm referring to Catholic Eastern rites, and possibly to Orthodox ones as well. I'd like to know their place in the Divine Office. Feel free to point the use in any rite (e.g., Byzantine, or other ones).

Information I seek is, for example, that in the X rite they are chanted at Y time of the day, together or not, maybe with some psalms in between, at the start, in the middle or at the end of the Office, before or after readings of the Scriptures... things like this.

But even very basic information is appreciated (e.g., in rite X the Magnificat is chanted in the office Y).

For the Eastern Orthodox Church:

Magnificat: Sung at daily Matins, after the Psalter readings and Psalm 50 (LXX)
Benedictus: I don't believe is sung regularly at any service.  It is, however, the Gospel reading for Matins and the Divine Liturgy on the Feast Day of the Nativity of John the Baptist (June 24)
Nunc Dimittis: Read during each daily Vespers, near the end of the service.

I believe this is the typical usage for most Typicons (e.g. Russian, Greek, etc.)


Did God create darkness? Without Light, there is darkness. Darkness is not made, it is just there. However, before the creation there was nothing. Does that mean that darkness was also not there?

Let us look at Genesis 1:5:

  1 In the beginning God created the sky and the earth.
  2 The earth was empty and had no form. Darkness covered the ocean, and God's Spirit was moving over the water.
   3 Then God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
  4 God saw that the light was good, so he divided the light from the darkness.
  5 God named the light "day" and the darkness "night." Evening passed, and morning came. This was the first day.

There is no mention in the Bible that suggests that God created the darkness. When exactly was Darkness created? Is Darkness a thing, or is it the same as nothingness?

Darkness is a physical reality of the physical universe.  It should be noted that darkness is really the absence of light.  We have light bulbs that light a room, but there is no such thing as a dark bulb that brings dark into the room.  Darkness occurs in the absence of light.

That being said, the physical universe was created by God.  The physical universe is made up of time, space, and matter.  Science now shows (with the theory of relativity) that the universe had a beginning.  There was a "time" when time, space, and matter did not exist.  The creator of time, space, and matter must be an entity outside of time, space, and matter.  God is Spirit and thus exists apart from the physical universe.

Consequently, God is the "Beginner", who created the physical universe, including the physical reality of darkness.


Why do Protestants trust what Paul and Luke wrote 100%? This has always been a big question for me.

I can understand that many Christians believe there is good evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, and that gives a basis for their faith in the teaching of Jesus and the gospels that speak about him and his disciples.

But the same Christians do not believe, for example, Mohammad's claims. One big reason is that Mohammad basically claimed a personal revelation that only he received. There could be any number of reasons for that, including epileptic episodes etc.

Now Paul by his own account had a personal experience on the road to Damascus, and it kind of resembles Mohammad's experiences. So that by itself wouldn't be enough to have a leap of faith and say that whatever Paul wrote is therefore true.

Having been investigating this matter for quite some time, all the evidence that I see points away from the conclusion that Paul and the author of Luke/Acts are trustworthy. However, if I list all this evidence, the question will get too long. As a result, I will write an answer as StackExchange encourages, and include the evidence there. However, due to the nature of the question and the unsatisfactory (to those who believe Paul implicitly) answer, I will probably get downvoted on both the question and the answer. Hopefully not, since this is a serious matter.

The reason it is serious - especially to Jewish Christians - is because:

God said that many Laws are forever (examples)
Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount that any Jews who set aside even the smallest commandment and teach others to do so, will be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 5:19)
Rather than saying the Law was powerless to save, Jesus said, "if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments" (see Matthew 19:16–22). And in fact even as Jesus taught about the Son of Man being betrayed to the Gentiles, and will rise on the third day, he didn't say that the Law would be nailed to the cross.

This makes it crucial to ascertain if Paul and Luke are trustworthy, because if they are not, then it's dangerous for a Jewish Christian to stop following the Law, just because Paul said so.

To summarize the question: if you draw a graph starting with Jesus, and to his disciples and their disciples, you get Paul and Luke as basically "disconnected" from the graph. Paul claims he got the revelation from his own visions. Luke describes miracles Paul did. Luke endorses Paul. Paul endorses himself. Paul says he won the argument with Peter. There is no account from the disciples Jesus set up, about any of those things. Why do Protestants just assume Paul is right, and his theology is right, and Luke is trustworthy?

Just to prevent simple knee-jerk potential answers to this question:

Paul is trustworthy because Acts describes him doing miracles. The issue here is that Acts is attributed to Luke, a student of Paul. This man also never met Jesus in real life.
Luke is trustworthy because his details were verified. Being able to correctly name people and places around you doesn't automatically mean the miracle claims are true, how do we know this wasn't just propaganda to boost Paul among the Gentile churches?
2 Peter 3:16 endorses Paul. Yes as far as I know this is in fact the ONLY place outside Paul + Luke that Paul is even mentioned by name. However there is a huge problem. Most modern New Testament scholars don't believe 2 Peter was written by Peter. So if your only evidence for Paul's authority outside their own writings is 2 Peter, then that means you are disagreeing with most New Testament scholars. Also, the original Church acceptance was also quite contentious.

In short, do Protestants have any logical reasons to believe in the authority of Paul and Luke? These reasons have to be better than the reasons they reject in other cases, such as Mohammad, Joseph Smith, etc. I can understand that you can just choose to believe on faith, but I am looking for solid logical arguments.

Protestants trust what Paul and Luke wrote for the same reason Catholics, and all other Christians, believe what they wrote is correct: because the rest of the New Testament testifies to the veracity of what they say.

Peter asserts Paul's writings are scripture in 2 Peter 3:14-16. The first several chapters of Acts are about everyone but Paul. And, from Paul's conversion to his ministry is a period of several years, wherein the other Apostles are followed and written about.

In Acts 15, where the Council at Jerusalem is recorded, several Apostles affirm Paul's work.


Why do some Christians oppose Tarot cards? The title should explain it all.  Many (perhaps most) Christians view Tarot cards as evil, or at least something to be avoided.  Why?

Tarot cards are widely used for fortune telling and other occult practices, which most Christians consider to be sinful. While the cards may not be themselves considered bad, or possessing them inherently sinful, it is likely to be thought of as an indication that you are involved with occult practices, or are laying yourself open to temptation in that regard.

Having a good reason for possessing Tarot cards, not involved with occult practices, is going to be looked on differently. The Tarot deck is in fact just a standard card deck from the 15th century, and only came to be associated with occultism in the 18C. There are a number of historical games (some of which I play) that use the deck, and have no occult connections at all.


Are there other biblical references where angels are disguised as humans? I was reading Genesis 19: Sodom and Gomorrah Destroyed and in the first verse, two angels are greeted by Lot as they arrive at the gates of Sodom. But instead of the "do not be afraid" speech that angels typically say, Lot offers to wash their feet and insists they spend the night at his house. What is going on here? I can't find a verse that specifically states the angels were disguised as men, but in verse 5, the people of Sodom say, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

This would be really weird if the angels weren't disguised (actually it's weird either way) so I'm going to go ahead and say that they were disguised as men. Are there other biblical references where angels are disguised as humans?

Apparently, some in New Testament times were familiar with some such incidents, and did not find it unlikely that it would happen, as related in the book of Hebrews:

  Hebrews 13:2

  Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.


Can a non-Catholic receive Baptism (to formally marry a Catholic), without converting to the Catholic faith? I am a practicing Catholic who wishes to marry my Buddhist girlfriend.  For the marriage to be a valid sacrament in the eyes of the Church, she must be baptized as a Catholic - something she would be happy to do, but she would not want to renounce the Buddhism in which she was raised and which she practices devoutly. So a couple of questions on what is admittedly an unusual circumstance:

Once she receives the sacrament of Baptism, is she required to convert to Catholicism for that Baptism - and therefore the marriage - to be valid in the eyes of the Church and in the eyes of God?
I have read that a Catholic can even marry an unbaptized non-Catholic within the Church, but that such a marriage "would be valid, but not sacramental."  If we were to marry in this fashion without her Baptism, is there a danger of living in mortal sin as a result?  I assume if that were the case the marriage would not be allowed in the first place, but this is a grey area I would like to have clarified.

Once she receives the sacrament of Baptism, is she required to convert to Catholicism for that Baptism - and therefore the marriage - to be valid in the eyes of the Church and in the eyes of God?

First off, Baptism is pretty big deal in the Catholic Church. In order to ensure that the adult is serious and understands what it entails, they must go through the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults (RCIA), a series of classes about the beliefs of the Catholic faith, typically taking place over several months.* At the end of that period, usually at the Easter Vigil, they publicly profess that they believe all that the Catholic Church teaches, and express their desire to join the Catholic Church. That is, they are publicly converting to Catholicism. They then receive the sacrament of Baptism, along with both the sacrament of Confirmation and their first sacrament of the Eucharist.

In other words, converting to Catholicism is a prerequisite for Baptism (and the accompanying Confirmation and Eucharist). While you could certainly lie when you publicly say that you believe all that the Catholic Church teaches and then get baptized, that would make the Baptism invalid in the eyes of the Church, as well as the consequent sacrament of marriage (even if it's never "caught" by the Church).

If your girlfriend is not prepared to leave her Buddhist faith and convert to Catholicism, then she cannot become baptized.

* Some parishes allow individuals to join RCIA if they want to become educated in the Catholic faith, but do not intend to convert or be baptized. It's not uncommon for an interfaith couple to join RCIA together so that the non-Catholic better understands their spouse's faith.

  I have read that a Catholic can even marry an unbaptized non-Catholic within the Church, but that such a marriage "would be valid, but not sacramental."

This is correct. The sacrament of marriage can only happen between two Catholics. However, non-sacramental marriage* between a Catholic and non-Catholic is permitted and valid if the proper procedure is followed. A Catholic wishing to marry a non-Christian** would need to request a "dispensation for disparity of cult". This process is described in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) sections 1633 through 1637, in particular 1635 (emphasis in the original):

  According to the law in force in the Latin Church, a mixed marriage [i.e. two Christians where only one is Catholic] needs for liceity the express permission of ecclesiastical authority. In case of disparity of cult [i.e. marrying a non-Christian] an express dispensation from this impediment is required for the validity of the marriage. This permission or dispensation presupposes that both parties know and do not exclude the essential ends and properties of marriage; and furthermore that the Catholic party confirms the obligations, which have been made known to the non-Catholic party, of preserving his or her own faith and ensuring the baptism and education of the children in the Catholic Church.

In other words, you must:

Get explicit permission from an ecclesiastical authority

This is usually the office of the Bishop of your diocese
The exact process will vary depending on your diocese, but nowadays it's typically started by talking with the priest/deacon of your parish, who then submits a form to the Bishop. Here is the form for the Diocese of Honolulu, and here is a similar form for the Diocese of Ossory.

Be in agreement with your future wife about "the essential ends and properties of marriage", as understood by the Catholic Church

The most basic of these ends and properties would be that it is a life-long monogamous union between a man and woman

As a Catholic, ensure that any children of yours are baptized and educated in the teachings of the Catholic Church

If these things are followed, then you are free to marry your girlfriend even if she chooses to remain Buddhist.

* The difference between a sacramental and non-sacramental marriage is partially described in this question. If you have further questions about the difference, it's best to ask a new question on this site.

** The process of marrying a baptized Christian of a different denomination (called a "mixed marriage") is similar, but has a few differences that are best answered in other question.

  If we were to marry in this fashion without her Baptism, is there a danger of living in mortal sin as a result? I assume if that were the case the marriage would not be allowed in the first place, but this is a grey area I would like to have clarified.

No, if you follow the process of being granted a dispensation for disparity of cult, you are not living in any sort of mortal sin (if you fail to get the dispensation, then you would be committing fornication, which is a mortal sin). Indeed, CCC 1637 encourages the Catholic to practice their faith in the hopes of leading their spouse to join the faith of their own volition.

  In marriages with disparity of cult the Catholic spouse has a particular task: "For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband." It is a great joy for the Christian spouse and for the Church if this "consecration" should lead to the free conversion of the other spouse to the Christian faith. Sincere married love, the humble and patient practice of the family virtues, and perseverance in prayer can prepare the non-believing spouse to accept the grace of conversion.

So the Church, rather than believing you to be in a state of mortal sin, supports your marriage (so long as the criteria above were followed) and hopes that in the future it will lead your wife to convert to Catholicism of her own free will.


According to Evangelical Presbyterians, do ghosts exist? They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost.

  Luke 24:37 (NIV)

This incident shows that the disciples were afraid of an apparition.They thought that they saw a ghost.

A ghost is 'the spirit of a dead person, especially one that is believed to appear to the living in bodily form or to haunt specific locations (American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition).

What does Evangelical Presbyterians believe about ghosts?

Once upon a time the word 'ghost' was synonymous with 'spirit'. Every person had a 'ghost', and their 'ghost' went to be with God when they died. This is why the Holy Spirit is sometimes called the Holy Ghost, and where we get expressions like "give up the ghost'. In that sense virtually all Christians believe in the existence of ghosts, meaning that all people have a spirit.

Today the word 'ghost' specifically means a disembodied spirit that haunts people or places.  In that sense, there are no Christian denominations that require members to believe in ghosts. Since there are bible passages that refer to people returning from the dead, most biblical literalists believe in at least the theoretical possibility of disembodied spirits appearing on earth, but that is a long way from believe that all or most reported hauntings are real.

Practically this means that in any Christian denomination there will be some people who believe in ghosts, and some who don't.


Why would one literally eat the body of Christ, if it is literal? According to those who hold that the bread and wine do not merely represent the body and blood of Christ, but actually are those things, why are those things eaten?

Should they not be buried?

Why are we "eating" the flesh and blood of Christ?

1. Because Jesus commanded us to

In the institution of the Eucharist, Jesus explicitly commands us to eat the bread and drink the wine, saying "This do in remembrance of me." Indeed, as often as we do this, we do "proclaim the Lord's death until He come."

Indeed, John goes even further, recording Jesus in dialogue saying:

  52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread[c] the fathers ate, and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 Jesus[d] said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum.

The fact that Christians "ate the body of Christ" and "drank his blood" led to the belief in ancient Rome that Christians were cannibals. This was one of the reasons they were persecuted. That said, the point was that Christians were completely identifying with Christ, and not just filling the belly.

2. Because Priests consume the sacrifice

1 Corinthians 5 says:

  For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast.

This indicates that Christ, being the Passover, is the sacrifice.  As a "royal priesthood," the pattern would be to handle the sacrifice as was custom.  In Dueteronomy 18:1, we read of the Levites:

  “The Levitical priests, all the tribe of Levi, shall have no portion or inheritance with Israel. They shall eat the LORD’s food offerings as their inheritance.


Where Does Jesus Say "I will save humanity"? I had an old friend ask the following: "Where in the Bible does Jesus say, "I will go save humanity"" (Or something along those lines). I tried to explain God is Jesus, and it was his will. But they were looking for the exact verse. I couldn't think off any the top of my head.

I know it says the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the earth. But that doesn't really say it all. This person is having trouble understanding why Jesus (in particular), would do this for us bad people.

There are indirect passages that state this.

John 3:16-17 ESV For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.

John the Baptist had this to say:

John 1:29 ESV The next day he [John the Baptist] saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! ... "

Jesus himself never outright said "I am God. Worship me." He did this because he wanted his followers to have faith in him. His miracles testified to his Godliness.

John 10:24-25 ESV So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.” Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me...
John 14:8-11 ESV Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.
John 10:31-33 ESV "I and the Father are one." The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?” The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”

Note the last passage: people say that Jesus is claiming to be God and want to kill him because of it, and Jesus does not correct them.


Does the seal of confession apply even when the sin is intended and there is no desire to repent? Forgive me if this is too basic, I am no theologian, and I was puzzled by a scene from a popular TV series about a crime-busting priest. In it, the villain goes into the confessional and informs the priest of a crime he is planning to commit in order to silence the priest. The priest asks if he intends/wants to repent, the other says absolutely not, but "you can't tell anyone!?"

From my long-forgotten religious education, I would suggest that simply telling a priest you intend to sin would not constitute confession, and therefore the "seal of the confessional" simply would not apply. Of course, for dramatic purposes, the priest kept silent, but I doubt if he was bound to do so.

Welcome any more informed opinions.

Edit I have expanded the question, as, pace @Geremia, my question is not whether absolution is granted, as I believe silence would still be enjoined on the priest, but whether simply informing a priest that, eg, you are firmly determined to murder your spouse and have no "firm purpose of amendment" - would, in fact, constitute confession.

I can't find an explicit statement that the seal of confession applies (or not) to the "confession" of a sin to be committed in the future, but all the evidence suggests that it does not.

Canon 983 and 984 are most relevant regarding the seal of confession:

  Can. 983 §1. The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is
  absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent
  in words or in any manner and for any reason.

  §2. The interpreter, if there is one, and all others who in any way
  have knowledge of sins from confession are also obliged to observe
  secrecy.

  Can. 984 §1. A confessor is prohibited completely from using knowledge
  acquired from confession to the detriment of the penitent even when
  any danger of revelation is excluded.

  §2. A person who has been placed in authority cannot use in any manner
  for external governance the knowledge about sins which he has received
  in confession at any time.

  Code of Canon Law

However, this presupposes that the confessor acquired this knowledge during a valid confession.

Regarding the essential parts of a valid confession, the Council of Trent taught that

  the acts of the penitent himself, namely, contrition, confession and satisfaction, constitute the matter of this sacrament, which acts, inasmuch as they are by God's institution required in the penitent for the integrity of the sacrament and for the full and complete remission of sins, are for this reason called the parts of penance.

  ...

  Contrition, which holds the first place among the aforesaid acts of the penitent, is a sorrow of mind and a detestation for sin committed with the purpose of not sinning in the future. This feeling of contrition was at all times necessary for obtaining the forgiveness of sins and thus indeed it prepares one who has fallen after baptism for the remission of sins, if it is united with confidence in the divine mercy and with the desire to perform the other things that are required to receive this sacrament in the proper manner. The holy council declares therefore, that this contrition implies not only an abstention from sin and the resolution and beginning of a new life, but also a hatred of the old...

  Fourteenth Session of the Council of Trent

Contrition in the penitent is required for the integrity of the sacrament, and contrition is obviously lacking in the case at hand since the "penitent" is not actually sorrowful and intending to avoid the sin in the future. Since it is not a valid confession it follows that the seal of confession does not apply. After all, if a priest overhears the villain disclosing his criminal plans outside of the confessional (e.g. discussing plans with an accomplice) he is obviously not bound to secrecy just because he happens to be a priest.

Even if the seal of confession did apply the priest is able to take certain measures to prevent the crime without violating the seal. I found an interesting blog post about the seal of confession (supposedly written by a canon lawyer) which explores some hypothetical situations similar to the one posed, the most relevant of which is:

  If the penitent is not willing to cooperate, there are sometimes
  situations in which priests can find ways to help the authorities
  without revealing the content of a person’s confession. If a penitent
  has indicated, for example, that he fully intends to kill or harm
  Person X, a priest may be able to warn the police that Person X is in
  danger, but without fully explaining how he obtained this information.
  I personally know of a case in which police received a phone call from
  a priest, warning them that two teenaged sisters were in danger at
  that very moment. The police understood that the priest was not
  permitted to give them more specific information, and simply located
  the girls, notified their parents, and made sure they were protected.
  It is quite likely that some horrible crime was averted by this
  priest’s action, yet he did not violate the sacramental seal—in fact,
  nobody was really sure if he had learned the information in the
  confessional or in a confidential conversation outside of it. Once
  again, such collaboration between the authorities and the clergy
  happens more often than we may realize.

Although the seal of confession probably does not apply in this situation, the penalty for violating the seal of confession is so severe that the priest may nonetheless choose to remain silent in order to make sure he does not violate the seal of confession.


To which cleric(s) does a lay Catholic have to obtain Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur? For example, a group of lay Catholics are about to publish an app (i.e. a game) that aims to teach Church doctrine. Who must they approach in order to obtain Nihil Obstat and an Imprimatur to certify that their work has no moral objections from the Roman Catholic Church?

Do they have to submit his/her work to his/her country's episcopal conference? To their company's (or non-profit org's) local diocese? To the Diocese of San Jose (in reference to the fact that Google's Mountain View Office is located in the Diocese of San Jose)? Does the target user locale determine the authorities that will give the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur? (example: Locale-en-US)

Very much appreciated!

To obtain an "Imprimi Potest," an "Nihil Obstat," or an "Imprimatur" one has to go through one's ordinary (local bishop).

The “Nihil Obstat” and “Imprimatur"

  The Church, given teaching authority by Christ and as the conduit for fullness of Truth on this earth, has the obligation to preserve Her sheep from deviations from the Truth and to guarantee them the "objective possibility of professing the true faith without error" (Catechism, No. 890). Because of this, the Bishops will look at books published by Catholics on Catholic matters in their dioceses, giving them their "okay" if nothing therein is found to be contrary to the Faith (relevant Canon Law: "Title IV: The Means of Social Communication," ¶ 822-832)

  The procedure works like this: when a Catholic writes a book on faith, morals, theology, liturgy, books on prayer, editions of Sacred Scripture, etc., he will submit his manuscript to his diocese's Censor. If the Censor finds no problem with it, he will give it his stamp, which reads "Nihil Obstat," or "nothing stands in the way." He then sends it to the Bishop for his review. If the Bishop finds nothing objectionable, he gives the book his "Imprimatur" which means, "let it be printed."

  If the Catholic writing the book is a member of a religious order, the manuscript is first sent to his religious superior before it is sent to the Censor and Bishop. If the religious superior finds no impediment to publication, he will give the book his stamp of "Imprimi Potest," which means "it can be printed."

  Nowadays, after the Imprimatur, you might see these words:

  The "Nihil Obstat" and "Imprimatur" are official declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur agree with the content, opinions or statements expressed.

 Religious Superior's stamp:   IMPRIMI POTEST   "it can be printed"

             Censor's stamp:   NIHIL OBSTAT     "nothing stands in the way"

             Bishop's stamp:   IMPRIMATUR       "let it be printed"

Addendum: The author of a book or owner of the copyright/patent must approach the local bishop for publishing Catholic doctrinal books or apps and so on before going to a publisher or company.


Who are the hypocrites associated with fasting in the Didache? The early Christian teaching Didache states that Christians should not fast like the hypocrites:

  Your fasts must not be identical with those of the hypocrites. They fast on Mondays and Thursdays; but you should fast on Wednesdays and Fridays. [Chapter 8]

Who are the hypocrites? A rival Christian group? The Pharisees? Someone else?

It is indeed about the Pharisees. Here's what Shmuel Safrai's paper “Religion in Everyday Life" says:

  Mondays and Thursdays, which were synagogue days, when country-folk came to town and the courts sat and the Torah was read, were the favoured days for public and private fasts. People would assemble for prayer, mention the reason for the fast, as follows from a baraita in the Babylonian Talmud. Most texts which mention fasting on Mondays and Thursdays are later than 70 C. E. though some are definitely earlier. Epiphanius says that these were the days of the Pharisees’ fasts in Jesus’ time, and the Didache warns against fasting ‘along with the hypocrites’ (the Pharisees) on these days, urging for Wednesday and Friday instead. The Pharisee in Luke who boasted of his twice-weekly fasting must have meant Mondays and Thursdays. But the custom was confined to certain circles among the Pharisees and their disciples. (page 816)


In LDS church, what is the difference between formal probation, disfellowshipment, and excommunication Looking at this question about tithes it seems that a member in the LDS church can in some cases (not related to paying tithes, though) be placed on formal probation, disfellowshipped or excommunicated.

What are the differences, as far as practical consequences to the individual, between these three forms of punishment?

Probation is an action taken by a church leader or council that limits some privileges of church membership. Not all probation is negative; quite often, it is merely counsel to attend the temple more, read select scriptures, or pray more frequently and fervently. The only difference between informal and formal probation as far as I understand it is that formal probation occurs by a disciplinary council.

Disfellowshipment is a suspension of participation in church activities, callings, ordinances, etc. -- the public or "outward" things. Usually these individuals should still attend sacrament meetings. And, like probation, conditions of disfellowshipment may be positive.

Excommunication means the individual is no longer a member of the Church; this is actually quite rare.

In all of this, Church leaders remember that "the Lord sees weaknesses differently than He does rebellion. Whereas the Lord warns that unrepented rebellion will bring punishment, when the Lord speaks of weaknesses, it is always with mercy." -- Richard G. Scott


What percentage of Christendom takes early Genesis in a literal sense? This obviously varies massively between denominations and even within denominations. I am trying to assess what percentage of Christendom takes early Genesis absolutely literally (six-day creation within the last 10,000 years, Noah's global flood, Adam and Eve as the first humans, etc.) as opposed to allegorically.

Here is some fairly recent data by those not friendly to creationism.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publid.htm

It looks like those who believe in creationism are 36%. While those who do not believe in evolution are 29%.

It is interesting to note that while falling, the percent change over the generations is not as steep as one might suspect.

There is also a graph where different denominations are polled about their belief in evolution. From Catholic = 58% to Evangelical = 23%

This might give some idea of the distribution.