How do I know when to cross myself during Mass (Novus Ordo)? I've been going to Catholic (Latin Rite) Mass my whole life and am constantly surprised by the different times that people will cross themselves during the Liturgy.

I only do it when the Priest says the "Father, Son and Holy Spirit"  (and I try to hang on to Holy....Spirit for as long as it takes for him to finish the sentence (not sure if that's necessary).  And doing the three crosses before the Gospel is read (which wasn't certain is in the rubrics but asked about here and found it to be)

I've seen people cross themselves during the Penitential Rite, the Kyrie, and at other times during the Eucharistic Prayer. And crossing themselves at a Mass with the Bishop when he comes down the aisle blessing everyone (regardless of whether he has holy water).  Is that just how we catch his blessing? People also cross themselves after receiving communion, but as a Catechist, I was taught this is not right, so I'm not asking about that. see this question

I'll probably ask a follow up about crossing thyself during the Liturgy of the Hours, so no need to include that in the answer.

How do I know when to cross myself during the Mass of Pope Paul VI (Novus Ordo)?

To start with, prior to Mass, we bless ourselves with Holy Water at the entrance of the church by dipping our fingers in into the Holy Water and making the sign of the cross on ourselves.

The same is done when exiting the church after Mass.

  Dipping Your Hand in Holy Water

  When you come into the church building, what is the first thing you do? Don't, you dip your hand into the holy water and make the sign of the cross? Why do you do that? Well, for three reasons:
        a. in repentance for your sins;
        b. for protection against the Evil One;
        c. to remind you of your baptism.

  a. Holy water reminds us to be sorry for our sins. When there is the rite of sprinkling in the liturgy, we always sing the Asperges, which means "you will sprinkle or wash". Asperges me hysoppo et mundabor, lavabis me et super nivem dealbabor. These are words from the great penitential psalm, Ps 50: You will sprinkle me with hyssop and I shall be cleansed: you will wash me, and I shall be made whiter than snow.

  b. Holy water is a sacramental which is a protection against the snares of the devil. The old prayer for the blessing of holy water said: "0 God, creator of unconquered power, King of invincible empire and victor ever-great: who put down the powers of hostile dominion and conquer the fury of the roaring enemy, who fight powerfully against our wicked foes: trembling we beseech you, 0 Lord, we implore you and beg you: that you might graciously look upon this creature of water and salt, kindly illumine it, sanctify it with the dew of your loving kindness, so that wherever it is sprinkled, through the invocation of your holy Name, every infestation of the unclean spirit be cast out, and the terror of the poisonous serpent be driven far away. And may the presence of the Holy Spirit deign to be with us always, we who implore your mercy."

  c. Holy water reminds us of our baptism: of that great day when we ourselves or our parents or sponsors - renounced Satan, professed faith in Christ, and were baptized into the mystery of the Holy Trinity. At that moment all our sins were forgiven: original and actual, and we became children of God, filii in Filio, heirs of the promise, daring now to call God our Father.

  When, you dip your hand into the holy water font, remember these things, and like Our Lady, treasure them in your heart. - Sacred Signs and Active Participation at Mass

During the actual Mass itself we make the sign of the cross at thee different times. All other times the faithful make the sign of the cross are not listed in the norms or guidelines of the Mass and are to be considered optional or due to personal piety either from a personal or regional custom.

When we make the sign of the cross during the actual Mass it is determined by both the rubrics of the Mass and personal tradition.

  How many times are Catholics meant to do the sign of the cross during Mass?

  1.The celebrating Priest opens the Mass with a sign of the cross, which the congregation joins in.

  2.Just prior to the the Gospel reading there is an older version of the sign of the cross preformed by drawing out a small cross over the forehead, the lips, and the chest.

  3.The celebrating Priest concludes the Mass with a sign of the cross, which the congregation joins in.

  Optional times:

  1.Each time you genuflect you can simultaneously make a sign of the cross (which should be done when you enter Mass, exit Mass, and cross in front of the Altar)

  2.When the celebrating Priest passes by during the entering and exiting processions.

  3.When a Priest gives a blessing at Mass.

  4.After receiving the body and blood of Christ each participant preforms a personal sign on the cross.

  5.When you feel moved to “put on the armor of God”

To this list of options, I would like to add that some priests start their homilies with the sign of the cross which the faithful are encouraged to do also.

In short there are several other times the faithful may make the sign of the cross out of personal piety.

For those who wish to peruse more information on the subject here is the GENERAL INSTRUCTION OF THE ROMAN MISSAL from the Vatican.


Do we know the fates of any of the implausible relics Martin Luther described? Martin Luther described a number of extraordinary relics that his contemporaries are said to have.

  “Certain men have impudently boasted that they possess a feather from the holy angel St. Michael. The bishop of Mainz claims to have a flame from the bush of Moses. So in Compostella the banner is exhibited that Christ had in hell, and likewise the crown of thorns, the nails, etc., and also some of Mary’s milk.” (Martin Luther's Works, Vol 54.247)

My interpretation is that Luther was incredulous that anybody would believe these were genuine relics, not the least of which would be the logistical issues with preserving them well into the 16th century. (How would a flame that doesn't consume anything be kept for thousands of years without anyone recording it? How how did someone get hold of a banner that Christ had in Hell?)

Do we know the fate of any of these implausible relics? Were they destroyed by Protestants? Were they discarded by the Catholic church? Are they still venerated as authentic relics?

Do we know the fates of any of the implausible relics Martin Luther described?

The answer to this question will depend on the relic!

St Michael's Feather

When I was a young altar server, the standard joke was that if you were good you would be able to find a "feather of St. Michael." We all understood this as a joke because Angels are intellectual in nature. This joke is as old as people have been able to believe in such things.

We all know that Angels are purely spiritual beings and do not possess a physical body what so ever. The Holy Angels can appear to individuals as seen in Scriptures, but in assumed bodies.

  Angela and Bodies

  Angels have no bodies. An intellectual nature (that is, a substantial essence equipped for understanding and willing) does not require a body. In man, because the body is substantially united with the spiritual soul, intellectual activities (understanding and willing) presuppose the body and its senses. But an intellect in itself, or as such, requires nothing bodily for its activity. The angels are pure spirits without a body, and their intellectual operations of understanding and willing depend in no way at all upon material substance.
  That the angels sometimes assume bodies is known from Holy Scripture. Angels appeared in bodily form to Abraham and his household; the angel Raphael came in the guise of a young man to be the companion of the younger Tobias.
  In bodies thus assumed, angels do not actually exercise the functions of true bodily life. When an angel in human form walks and talks, he exercises angelic power and uses the bodily organs as instruments. But he does not make the body live, or make it his own body.  - FROM THE TEACHINGS OF SAINT THOMAS AQUINAS

As we see, it is not possible for any relic of St. Michael to possibly exist. Nevertheless some of the faithful believe in such tales or folklore.

  You Find a Feather

  St. Michael is a very clear communicator. You will most often hear his guidance in your mind or sense it as a gut feeling. There are instances when, to get his point across clearly, Michael will send physical signs as proof of his guidance. Since Archangel Michael is a protector, his signs are designed to comfort and reassure. If you question or do not notice the signs that he sends, he will find a way to communicate his message in different ways until you are at peace.

  One of the most well-known signs that you have been visited by an angel is finding a feather. These magical blessings are something many of us keep an eye out for and treasure once we discover. Often referred to as "calling cards", feathers are left as reminders that angels are watching over us. - How To Tell When St. Michael Is Watching Over You

In conclusion to this feather idea of Martin Luther, it would seem that he was simply repeating an old wise tale.

I am sure that it may have been possible that the Bishop of Mainz could have made a claim that he possessed the flame from the burning bush of Moses.

There run many stories or rather jokes that relics of similar such things may exist. For example, we would joke around that the Sacred Congregation of Relics (Rome) possesses a relic of the 10 plagues of Egypt and hopefully it would not be rediscovered and broken open (even accidentally). Stories turn into legend and legends ...

As for the banner that Christ had in hell, I can find no source of such a relic ever existing. Perhaps Martin Luther at one time heard of this story, but it remains that.

As for the relics of Mary's Milk, it is somewhat of a more passible relic. At least in the sense that it could be a third class relic.

  The Catholic Church divides relics into three classes:

  First-Class Relics: items directly associated with the events of Christ's life (manger, cross, etc.) or the physical remains of a saint (a bone, a hair, skull, a limb, etc.). Traditionally, a martyr's relics are often more prized than the relics of other saints. Parts of the saint that were significant to that saint's life are more prized relics. For instance, King St. Stephen of Hungary's right forearm is especially important because of his status as a ruler. A famous theologian's head may be his most important relic. (The head of St. Thomas Aquinas was removed by the monks at the Cistercian abbey at Fossanova where he died.) If a saint did a lot of traveling, then the bones of his feet may be prized. Catholic teaching prohibits relics to be divided up into small, unrecognizable parts if they are to be used in liturgy (i.e., as in an altar; see the rubrics listed in Rite of Dedication of a Church and an Altar).

  Second-Class Relics: items that the saint owned or frequently used, for example, a crucifix, rosary, book, etc. Again, an item more important in the saint's life is thus a more important relic. Sometimes a second-class relic is a part of an item that the saint wore (a shirt, a glove, etc.) and is known as ex indumentis ("from the clothing").

  Third-Class Relics: any object that is touched to a first- or second-class relic.[38] Most third-class relics are small pieces of cloth, though in the first millennium oil was popular; the Monza ampullae contained oil collected from lamps burning before the major sites of Christ's life, and some reliquaries had holes for oil to be poured in and out again. Many people call the cloth touched to the bones of saints "ex brandea". But ex brandea strictly refers to pieces of clothing that were touched to the body or tombs of the apostles. It is a term that is used only for such; it is not a synonym for a third-class relic. - Relic (Wikipedia)

According to an ancient tradition, some of the milk that Mary produced while nursing the Infant Jesus fell on the floor of the cave at Bethlehem. Later on the faithful would come and collect some of the chalk-like stone as a third class relic.

  A short distance south of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem is a shrine called the Milk Grotto, on a street of the same name.

  An irregular grotto hollowed out of soft white rock, the site is sacred to Christian and Muslim pilgrims alike. It is especially frequented by new mothers and women who are trying to conceive.

  According to tradition, while Mary and Joseph were fleeing Herod’s soldiers on their way to Egypt, they stopped in this cave while Mary nursed the baby Jesus. A drop of Mary’s milk fell upon the stone and it turned white.

  The grotto has been a site of veneration since the 4th century, the first structure being built over it around AD 385.

  By mixing the soft white chalk with their food, and praying to Our Lady of the Milk, they believe it will increase the quantity of their milk or enable them to become pregnant.

  Rows of framed letters and baby pictures sent from around the world to the Milk Grotto testify to the effectiveness of the “milk powder” and prayer. (The powder is available only at the shrine; it may not be ordered from overseas.) - Milk Grotto

Inside the Milk Grotto church

As for the relics of the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church believes that they do exist and that she is in possession of such relics:

Crown of thorns
The Nails


Has anyone in history suffered God’s visible wrath by uttering disrespect & attack on the dignity of the Vicar of Christ? We know from Apostle’s times that Jesus claimed that an attack or persecution to the Church member’s is a direct attack on Himself what more to a Vicar of Christ.
The Road to Damascus

"As Saul drew near to Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him,“Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me?” “Who are You, Lord?” Saul asked. “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” He replied.(Acts9:3-5)

And more importantly, St. Peter the 1st Vicar of Christ is shown in the Book of Acts as filled with the Holy Spirit guiding and empowering his thoughts,words & actions being the visible head of Christ founded Church..
Acts 5:3-10 New King James Version (NKJV)

But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.”
Then Ananias, hearing these words, fell down and breathed his last. So great fear came upon all those who heard these things. And the young men arose and wrapped him up, carried him out, and buried him.
Now it was about three hours later when his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 And Peter answered her, “Tell me whether you sold the land for so much?”She said, “Yes, for so much.”
Then Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” Then immediately she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. And the young men came in and found her dead, and carrying her out, buried her by her husband. (Acts5:3-10)

The “lies uttered to St. Peter concealed with evil intentions” is abominable to God, thru the presence of the Holy Spirit guiding and inspiring the actions of the Vicar of Christ.
The Vicar of Christ is the mouthpiece of God as Jesus said;
Luke 10:16 New King James Version (NKJV)

He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.”(Luke10:16)

And for Ananias & Sapphira uttering lies to St.Peter  the Vicar of Christ “face to face” suffered Godly wrath immediately thru physical death.
Ananias & Sapphira suffered death is a testament to the wording of the 4th Commandment.

"Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land which the Lord your God gives you.(Exodus20;12)

Ananias & Sapphira’s days were ended when they lied infront of the Holy Father,St. Peter the Vicar of Christ.
My question is in light of the continuing attacks & disrespect on the dignity of Pope Francis being the Vicar of Christ daily if not hourly receiving unkind, harsh, foul & blasphemous words in the light of experienced of St. Peter during Apostolic times and teaching.
Is there a recorded accounts in history on anyone attacking & disrespecting the dignity of any of the 266 Popes by “uttering lies with evil intentions” that suffered God’s visible wrath like the one of Ananias & Sapphira?

Has anyone in history suffered God’s visible wrath by uttering disrespect & attack on the dignity of the Vicar of Christ?

Bishop William of Utrecht appears to have done so in 1076.

Pope Gregory VII, also known as Hildebrand, had excommunicated Henry IV, King of the Germans, also known as the  Holy Roman Emperor. Gregory said Henry was no longer King.  Henry summoned his bishops and ordered them to excommunicate the Pope. Henry said Gregory was no longer Pope.

Plans were made for the High Mass at Utrecht Cathedral on Easter Day, 27th March, 1076.  Henry was to attend wearing his crown and robes, several bishops were to formally denounce the Pope and pronounce his excommunication.

Several bishops left Utrecht secretly during the night of Easter Eve, leaving only Bishop William of Utrecht to formally condemn Gregory, and declare his excommunication, which he did.

Later that same day lightning struck the church and it was largely destroyed by fire. Then, exactly a month to the day later, Bishop William died in great agony.

Henry then summoned another council, to take place in the city of Worms, at Whitsun, seven weeks after William's formal excommunication of the Pope.  None of the nobles he had summoned turned up.

The following winter was unusually severe. Gregory was in a castle in Tuscany while Henry stood outside barefoot in the snow, wearing only a shirt, begging Gregory's forgiveness. Only after three days was he allowed inside to kiss the Pope's foot and receive pardon. Whether Henry's contrition was genuine, or merely politically astute, is unclear, but it was not the end of the disputes between the two men; or between future popes and monarchs.

Were the lightning strike and fire in the cathedral of Utrecht, and the agonising death of its Bishop a month later, really visible manifestations of God's wrath?  The chances of such events happening by chance, so soon after the formal excommunication was pronounced, must be very small. Many, at the time, concluded that it was highly likely that God had manifested his wrath in such a way as to demonstrate whose side He was on, the Pope's or the King's.

However unlikely it may be that the events at Utrecht, in 1076, considered alone, were due to pure chance, looking back over 2000 years we can see that there have been very many other occasions when opposition to, or criticism of,  the Papacy has not been met with a bolt of lightning or agonising death within a month. By the laws of probability, then, it would be extremely improbable if none of these occasions had coincided with a bolt of lightning and a death.

Nevertheless the idea that God uses bolts of lightning to expre3ss his disapproval is very persistent. The lightning strike on St Peter's Basilica in Rome on the night of Pope Benedict's resignation in 2013; and the 1984 strike on York Minster following the Consecration of the controversial Bishop Jenkins of Durham, are examples which have been popularly ascribed to God's disapproval.

Jong Ricafort, in his answer, has noted three prominent Catholic critics of modern Popes, all of whom seem to have lived for many years, continuing to propagate their views, before eventually dying of apparently natural causes. The exception may be Father Malachi Martin. Someone claims an anonymous close friend of Father Malachi said he had told him on his deathbed that he felt a push (from a kitchen stool he was standing on) when nobody was there. Since the friend is anonymous this cannot be corroborated. We cannot rule out the possibility that God allowed an invisible demon to push him off the stool as a mark of displeasure for his criticism of the Pope, but the evidence is not very strong.

Even if it were to be established that critics of the Pope were dying mysteriously, there would still be other possibilities to consider.

In 1988 Pope John Paul II addressed the European Parliament. The Reverend Ian Paisley, a member of the Parliament representing Northern Ireland, stood up and loudly denounced him as the Antichrist. Neither the Pope, nor Reverend Paisley, were zapped by lightning. Paisley remained a MEP until he retired in 2004, topping the poll at every election. He remained a member of the  UK Parliament until he retired in 2010, when his son took the seat. He became First Minister of Northern Ireland (equivalent to joint provincial premier); and was Moderator of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster.  If God wished to demonstrate disapproval of criticism of the Pope then Mr Paisley would seem an obvious choice.

He died aged 88 in 2014. It was said at the time that, while on his deathbed, he told a close friend  that he wished to convert to Catholicism. The reason he is said to have given was that, if anybody was going to die, he'd rather it was a Catholic than a Protestant.  As with Malachi Martin, there is no corroboration.

In conclusion, there is no evidence that, as a rule, those who disrespect or attack the dignity of the Pope are subject to the visible wrath of God. Although it was believed in the 11th century that Bishop William of Utrecht  was;  this may be ascribed to chance coincidence  when considered in the context of history as a whole.


In Acts 25:10 Paul appeals to Caesar. What aspect of Roman law/citizenship was he invoking? Some commentators claim it was provacatio, others amplius. Most commentators simply state he had the right to appeal but what exactly was he invoking?

The wikipedia article on Valerian and Porcian law provides support for Paul's right to not be flogged as an interrogation technique on a separate occasion. But not for appeal to Caesar.

Edited: for clarity.

SUMMARY
It was provocatio, not amplius.  The latter was used by Felix to delay judgment.  From R.C. Sproul's 2010 commentary on Acts page 392 on Acts 24:22:

Here Felix invoked the Roman principle known as amplius, the formal delay or reservation of a final judgment.  Paul was not convicted in front of Felix, but Felix delayed a final decision on the matter and ordered that Paul be bound over to prison to await further examination by Lysias and then a final decision by Felix.

Appeal to Caesar WAS indeed part of a Roman Citizen's right, affirmed by a later law Lex Iulia de vi publica et privata promulgated in Augustus' reign before the birth of Jesus and was still in effect by the time of Paul.  See IV. Excursus: The Appeal under the early Emperors chapter of the 2010 book The Trial of St. Paul: A Juridical Exegesis of the Second Half of the Acts.  Quote from page 146:

... Indeed the right to appeal was re-affirmed by the promulgation in Augustus' reign of the Lex Iulia de vi publica et privata.  This law basically forbade an official holding the imperium to bind, torture, or kill a Roman citizen who had appealed to Rome.  The importance of the Lex Iulia de vi publica et privata lay in the fact that from the date of its promulgation "the Roman citizen was protected throughout the Roman Empire from the capital jurisdiction and violent coercitio of provincial governors.  ...

DETAILS
There is a very well researched article (with scholarly citations), The “Judicial Adventures” of Paul the Apostle, that shows how Luke used precise legal and Roman government terminologies contemporaneous with the middle 3rd of the 1st century, which indirectly bolsters the traditional dating of the book of Acts, because in less than 50 years the process changed.
The article covers ALL of Paul's entanglement with Roman law in the book of Acts and explained 1) how he acquired and used his citizenship for his advantage, 2) how different Roman cities have variations in judicial avenues because of local vs. empire rule, 3) how different types of governorship were in place, along with the scope of their authority, 4) how the whole city could be punished if they mistreat a Roman citizen, 5) the precise type of Roman law applicable to Paul's case in which he appealed to Caesar, but most importantly how it turns out that some scholar attributes to the Book of Acts the only surviving "court transcript" of a provocatio (appeal to the emperor) proceeding of that era before the process changed.
Some quotes from the article:

Privileges of Citizenship
The closest modern analogy that we can draw to the privileges of Roman citizenship might be the English under the British Raj20 or Americans abroad during the ﬁrst half of the Twentieth Century. Perhaps chiefest among their rights were those in the judicial sphere, especially the right provocatio, or appeal to the emperor. About two decades before the birth of Christ, Rome passed a law, the lex de ui publica, which

forbade any magistrate to kill, scourge, chain, torture, or even sentence a Roman citizen who had announced his intention to appeal, or prevent him from going to Rome to lodge his appeal there within a ﬁxed time.21

The only known statutory exception to this rule deals with citizens who were in military service. Over such troops (as well as all others) governors and generals held the ius gladii, the power of execution; it was considered necessary for military discipline.22
...
The Trial Before Festus (Acts 24:27-25:12)
Paul’s trial before Festus is interesting literarily as well as legally. Up to this point we have compared Luke’s accounts against known and little-known history. Now the tables are turned and Luke becomes a legal benchmark of sorts. As legal scholar A. H. M. Jones sees it, Paul’s trial before Festus is “the only account we possess of a provocatio…” (emphasis mine).49 That is, while others write of the process generally, or mention cases wherein provocatio was employed, we have no “court transcripts” other than Luke’s to show the “nuts and bolts” of the procedure.
The three elements of the extra ordinem session are present even more clearly here, for Festus’ consilium is mentioned by name in Acts 25:12.50 The circumstance that triggers Paul’s appeal to Caesar’s tribunal lies just beneath the surface of our English text. Festus is torn between two things: on the one hand, simple justice (Luke points out that the Jews brought charges “which they could not prove,” v. 7); and on the other, political expediency — as the new governor, he “wished to do the Jews a favor” (v. 9). Bruce believes that back of this was the implication that Festus “might treat the Sanhedrin as his consilium”51 if the venue moved to Jerusalem. Thus, while perhaps winning Festus a “political honeymoon,” it would hardly have been an even-handed affair. Hence, after over two years of conﬁnement, Paul appeals to Rome.
Luke’s record of the fact that Paul chose to appeal helps to date his work and sources, for less than ﬁfty years later the process had changed. As Bruce states it:

By the beginning of the second century a.d. it evidently became the regular practice for citizens in the provinces, charged with offenses not covered by statute law, to be sent to Rome almost automatically, without having to take the initiative in appealing to Caesar.52

Once again, the record of Paul’s “judicial adventures” is on target.
Endnotes:
2. Mark Black, “Paul and Roman Law in Acts”, Restoration Quarterly: Studies in Christian Scholarship, (1981) 209.
4. A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, (Baker Book House: Grand Rapids, MI, 1963) 1. I am indebted to Sherwin-White for the phrase “Judicial Adventures” which inspired this article's title.
9. Francis Lyall, “Roman Law in the Writings of Paul — Aliens and Citizens”, The Evangelical Quarterly, (48) 12.
20. Lyall, “Roman Law”, 10. This paints quite a picture for those with some familiarity with British India!
21. F. F. Bruce, New Testament History, (Doubleday & Company, Inc: New York, 1969) 358
22. Black. “Paul and Roman Law in Acts”, 211. It should be noted that the point is still debated. C. E. Brand, a U.S. Army military lawyer, in his book Roman Military Law, points out that the dispute is fueled by a coin inscription and how it is interpreted. Brand does not ﬁnd the idea of a condemned soldier’s right to provocatio very logical — or appealing. See especially pp. 67-68. Still, he feels that a citizen-soldier’s rights were valid when involved in non-military judicial disputes.
49. A. H. M. Jones, The Criminal Courts of the Roman Republic and Principate, (Rowman and Littleﬁeld Publishers: Totowa, NJ, 1972) 101. Curiously, after making this statement, Jones goes on to say that it “is unfortunately very confused, and one is led to suspect that neither Paul nor his biographer understood the legal position…”! If it is our only example, as he insists, how does he know that Paul and Luke were “confused”?!
50. And knowing of the existence and necessity of the consilium, we are not likely to confuse it with the other “council” mentioned in Acts 4:15 and 24:20, when it clearly refers to the Sanhedrin's council.
51. Bruce, History, 357.
52. Bruce, History, 358.


How and when was the belief that a baptism late in life increases our chances of being saved determined to be false? The venerable fathers of the Church Sts. Gregory the Theologian, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom and Jerome all seem to have accepted baptism late in their lives on the premise that it would improve their chances of being saved if they minimized sin after baptism.

How and when was this determined to be false by the Orthodox Catholic Church (that is: the Eastern Orthodox Church)?

(My statements in this question is based on the brief article: INFANT BAPTISM as I lack proper insight myself).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

It happened before the East-West split.

Late-delayed baptism seems to have started (at the latest) in the 4th century, coexisted with some kind of "credo" baptism and some kind of infant baptism, and was pretty much gone by the 5th century.  It was not so much "false", but that Augustine was a commanding intellect who argued well for doctrines of the church such as infant baptism.

  He was convinced that his baptism was a means of grace that helped to regenerate his soul and free him from his sexual sin.

and

  He used infant baptism as evidence for the sinfulness of infants. Thus, it was a weapon in his fight against the Pelagians.

This idea was not held by all the Church Fathers before Augustine.  He cemented the power base of that doctrine, so to speak.

LONG VERSION

According to this exposition at OCA.org (https://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/worship/the-sacraments/baptism), one facet of baptism is declaring yourself "with" or part of the Church.  Thus I infer that if one calls oneself a Christian, one would be baptized as a declaration.

Also, it looks like it is at baptism that one receives the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Those two points alone seem enough to command baptism as early as possible.

It reads to me as though the Orthodox church has ALWAYS believed this.  Why Basil and Gregory postponed baptism may simply be bad theology on their part.

EDIT No. 1

It seems as though Basil preached against late baptism!

EDIT No. 2

EVEN THOUGH THIS IS NOT AN EASTERN ORTHODOX ARTICLE, it looks to be informative, if its quotes from the Church Fathers are correct.  Caveat emptor.

https://sharperiron.org/article/baptism-history-part-1
This link seems to indicate that people were not postponing baptism, into the 3rd century.

However, the second part of the post suggests there were multiple views on baptism from the 3rd century -- mainly including clear indications of infant baptism.  https://sharperiron.org/article/baptism-history-part-2  But the "postponement" of baptism didn't refer to old age, but to maturity:

  “Jerome was born in 347…[near] Dalmatia…Jerome’s parents were Christians, who took care that he had been, as a baby, ‘nourished on Catholic milk,’ he was not baptized as a child…but as a young man…In those days, baptism was postponed until maturity…Augustine and Jerome’s friends, Rufinus and Heliodorus, are parallel cases.”15 Again the pattern was to delay baptism until maturity.

The article pins the act of delaying one's baptism unusually long times is probably from the 4th century, and lasting into the 5th century:

  Many in the third and fourth centuries viewed baptism as a one-time total washing that could never be repeated. Thus, backsliders have no hope of cleansing.

If the article is correct, then it looks to me like there were at least three competing views on baptism starting in the 4th century until the church settled on infant baptism in the 5th century.

Augustine

  By the 5th century, the Catholic Church was solidifying its teaching of infant baptism. Augustine had influence on this, which will be discussed in Part 3.

(Part 3: https://sharperiron.org/article/baptism-history-part-3)


Where did the term "Jew" come from? At what point did the Israelites start being called Jews and more importantly, why? Answers can cite biblical and extra-biblical sources.

Two appendices in The Jewish Annotated New Testament touch on the issue:

Greek-speaking Jews in antiquity regularly referred to themselves as Ioudaioi. As an ethnogeographical term, best translated "Judeans," it designates the members of the ethnic group inhabiting the district of Judea, or their descendants wherever they may be. It translates the Hebrew term yehudim, which appears in the Hebrew Bible in books of the exilic period (2 Kings, Jeremiah, Ezra-Nehemiah, Esther). In the course of the last centuries BCE and the first century CE the ethnogeographical meaning of Ioudaioi receded, and a new religious meaning came to take its place. As a religious term, best translated "Jews," it designates people of whatever ethnic or geographical origins who worship the God whose temple is (or, after 70 CE, had been) in Jerusalem. Modern translations, including the New Testament translation used in this volume, usually take Ioudaioi as a religious term ("Jews") rather than as an ethnogeographical term ("Judeans"), although this translation is not always certain or correct.1

And:

When Alexander the Great conquered the Persian Empire in the late fourth century BCE, one of the many lands he obtained was the small province, centered upon Jerusalem, called Yehud in Aramaic (Ezra 5.1; 5.8; 7.14). This name stemmed from the kingdom of Judah (Heb Yehudah)—the Southern Kingdom under the descendants of King David, who had ruled that land—after the separation from the Northern Kingdom of Israel in the late tenth century BCE, for more than three centuries before its occupation, first by the Babylonians (597–586 BCE), then by the Persians (539 BCE). Greek-speakers such as Clearchus of Soli (ca. 300 BCE) soon after began referring to this region as Ioudaia, "Judea," and its inhabitants as Ioudaioi, "Judeans."
. . .
As with any term of identity, dispute and/or confusion at times emerged in antiquity over who properly should be called Ioudaios. The problems began in the second century BCE, when an important development complicated the definition of the term Ioudaios. When the Hasmonean kings expanded Judean hegemony by conquering regions to the north and south of Judea—e.g., Samaria, Galilee, and Idumea—they imposed their laws on the native populations. As a result, many who previously had no ethnic or geographic connection to Judea became Ioudaioi, inasmuch as they resided on lands controlled by Judea and obeyed its laws. Yet, opinions varied regarding the extent to which one actually became a Ioudaios through such incorporation.
. . .
In recent years, some scholars have argued that translating Ioudaios with two terms—"Jew" for religious connotation and "Judean" for the ethno-geographic one—is anachronistic. . . . The term Ioudaios designated a person who was from or whose ancestors were from Judea, and for that reason worshiped the God of Judea.2

Summary
Because ethnicity and geography and religion were so closely associated in the ancient world, the term 'Judean' referred to the ethnicity, the geographic homeland, and the religion, all rolled into one, of the people group that came from the Kingdom of Judah.
Following the exilic period, the term eventually became semi-synonymous with 'Israelite' in its usage (since it could refer to people who were from an Israelite tribe other than Judah).
As the Judean ethnic group dispersed into other regions, and as the Judean religion became accepted by different ethnicities, the term slowly began to take on a broader meaning that could apply to any of those three aspects (ethnicity, homeland, or religion), without necessarily implying the other two. It's common for the word to be rendered as 'Jew' in English, most often in reference to the religion.

1 Shaye J.D. Cohen, 'Judaism and Jewishness', p. 513.
2 Joshua D. Garroway, 'Ioudaios', p. 524-525.


How long was Jesus's ministry? I've always heard, over in over, in Church and elsewhere that Jesus's ministry on Earth was only three years. However, it doesn't seem that there is much supporting Biblical evidence for this, or at least direct evidence. Nowhere does it say an exact period of time the events in the gospel where taking place over.

Is there evidence in the New Testament that we can reconstruct how long Jesus ministered for? If not then where does the three year figure come from?

Scholars who have attempted a synchronized harmony of the Gospels seem to indicate the Jesus went up to Jerusalem on three different occasions. From this, the tradition has grown up that his ministry was three years.

Beyond this interpolation, however, there is nothing to suggest how long his earthly ministry actually lasted. As such, it is probably best to say his ministry lasted at least three years.

Then again, after reading Mark keep saying "and he went immediately", you have gotten the impression it was just a few days :). But, overall, it does seem that the various times Jesus shows up in Jerusalem lend weight to at least 3 years.


Why the name Evil-merodach Is it a title?

And why is merodach written with a lower case "m"?

PS: I came across this name from Jeremiah 52:31 of an NLT Bible

The King James Version and the English Standard Version use the name Evil-merodach, as does the New Living Translation.  Clearly, using lower-case m is not a typographical error!  However, as to why the second part of the name does not have a capital letter M, there is no explanation.

The New International Version uses the name Evil-Merodach and notes he was also called Amel-Marduk.  He was Nebuchadnezzar's successor.

History records that Nebuchadnezzar was a follower of the Babylonian gods Nabu and Marduk.

The 'Enuma Elish' describes a great clash between various gods of the Babylonian pantheon:

  The two most important characters are the god Marduk and the goddess Tiamat. After Tiamat prepares many monsters and lesser gods to destroy the remainder of the pantheon, and a few younger gods have already failed at challenging her, Marduk offers to destroy Tiamat in return for being made highest among the gods. The other gods readily accept this offer, and Marduk becomes locked in mortal combat with Tiamat. After killing Tiamat, Marduk splits her body in two, making one half the sky and one half the earth. He makes humans from his own flesh and bone and brings order to the universe.
  Source: http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/stc/index.htm

The Enuma Elish is one of the oldest creation records ever discovered, likely dating to 1100 BC (Genesis, which is older, was written around 1400 BC).

As to why older Bible translations record the king's name as Evil-merodach, no explanation is given.  But Ken Graham's fulsome answer sheds light on his character, which may account for the prefix of Evil.


How has Roman Catholic Confession changed throughout the centuries? Currently, the common practice of confession in the U.S. is...

A person completes an examination of conscious, tells the priest how long it has been since their last confession, then they make their confession, the priest absolves their sins and gives them a penance, usually to say a few Hail Marys or Our Fathers.

In texts written by Catholic Saints, at times they talk about confession.  Specifically St. Therese of Liseaux and St. Gemma both mention their confessor in their autobiographies. Implying that they usually confessed to one specific priest, which is not a practice currently taught in U.S catholic schools. St. Francis de Sales also talks about making a general confession in his Introduction to the Devout Life, which he describes as confessing all of ones sins, from their entire life, to one confessor. Then keeping the same confessor, for subsequent confessions. He also describes a very detailed way of making a confession, including stating motives behind sins etc... A detailed description of his writing on everyday confession can be found in this article: On Confession.

Currently, Catholic Schools do not teach to go to one confessor, in fact they do not even mention the name confessor, they use the word priest.  Also, Catholic Schools do not teach to state ones motives, or to make a general confession, if switching confesors. It seems to me that based on reading Saints texts that Catholic confession has changed somewhat throughout the centuries. If it has not changed then these saints must be describing optional ways of confessing.

My specific question is ...Has confession changed throughout the centuries, specifically since the 16th century, and if so how?

How has Roman Catholic Confession changed throughout the centuries?

I know that this question deals with the 16th century on, but I would like to give a little background first.

  According to the Council of Trent, the consensus of all the Fathers always understood that by the words of Christ just cited, the power of forgiving and retaining sins was communicated to the Apostles and their lawful successors (Sess. XIV, c. i). It is therefore Catholic doctrine that the Church from the earliest times believed in the power to forgive sins as granted by Christ to the Apostles. Such a belief in fact was clearly inculcated by the words with which Christ granted the power, and it would have been inexplicable to the early Christians if any one who professed faith in Christ had questioned the existence of that power in the Church. But if, contrariwise, we suppose that no such belief existed from the beginning, we encounter a still greater difficulty: the first mention of that power would have been regarded as an innovation both needless and intolerable; it would have shown little practical wisdom on the part of those who were endeavouring to draw men to Christ; and it would have raised a protest or led to a schism which would certainly have gone on record as plainly at least as did early divisions on matters of less importance. But no such record is found; even those who sought to limit the power itself presupposed its existence, and their very attempt at limitation put them in opposition to the prevalent Catholic belief.

  Turning now to evidence of a positive sort, we have to note that the statements of any Father or orthodox ecclesiastical writer regarding penance present not merely his own personal view, but the commonly accepted belief; and furthermore that the belief which they record was no novelty at the time, but was the traditional doctrine handed down by the regular teaching of the Church and embodied in her practice. In other words, each witness speaks for a past that reaches back to the beginning, even when he does not expressly appeal to tradition.

  St. Augustine (d. 430) warns the faithful: "Let us not listen to those who deny that the Church of God has power to forgive all sins" (De agon. Christ., iii).
  St. Ambrose (d. 397) rebukes the Novatianists who "professed to show reverence for the Lord by reserving to Him alone the power of forgiving sins. Greater wrong could not be done than what they do in seeking to rescind His commands and fling back the office He bestowed. . . . The Church obeys Him in both respects, by binding sin and by loosing it; for the Lord willed that for both the power should be equal" (On Penance I.2.6).
  Again he teaches that this power was to be a function of the priesthood. "It seemed impossible that sins should be forgiven through penance; Christ granted this (power) to the Apostles and from the Apostles it has been transmitted to the office of priests" (On Penance II.2.12).
  The power to forgive extends to all sins: "God makes no distinction; He promised mercy to all and to His priests He granted the authority to pardon without any exception" (On Penance I.3.10).
  Against the same heretics St. Pacian, Bishop of Barcelona (d. 390), wrote to Sympronianus, one of their leaders: "This (forgiving sins), you say, only God can do. Quite true: but what He does through His priests is the doing of His own power" (Ep. I ad Sympron., 6 in P.L., XIII, 1057).
  In the East during the same period we have the testimony of St. Cyril of Alexandria (d. 447): "Men filled with the spirit of God (i.e. priests) forgive sins in two ways, either by admitting to baptism those who are worthy or by pardoning the penitent children of the Church" (In Joan., 1, 12 in P.G., LXXIV, 722).
  St. John Chrysostom (d. 407) after declaring that neither angels nor archangels have received such power, and after showing that earthly rulers can bind only the bodies of men, declares that the priest's power of forgiving sins "penetrates to the soul and reaches up to heaven". Wherefore, he concludes, "it were manifest folly to condemn so great a power without which we can neither obtain heaven nor come to the fulfillment of the promises. . . . Not only when they (the priests) regenerate us (baptism), but also after our new birth, they can forgive us our sins" (On the Priesthood III.5 sq.).
  St. Athanasius (d. 373): "As the man whom the priest baptizes is enlightened by the grace of the Holy Ghost, so does he who in penance confesses his sins, receive through the priest forgiveness in virtue of the grace of Christ" (Frag. contra Novat. in P.G., XXVI, 1315).

  These extracts show that the Fathers recognized in penance a power and a utility quite distinct from that of baptism. Repeatedly they compare in figurative language the two means of obtaining pardon; or regarding baptism as spiritual birth, they describe penance as the remedy for the ills of the soul contracted after that birth. But a more important fact is that both in the West and in the East, the Fathers constantly appeal to the words of Christ and given them the same interpretation that was given eleven centuries later by the Council of Trent. In this respect they simply echoed the teachings of the earlier Fathers who had defended Catholic doctrine against the heretics of the third and second centuries. Thus St. Cyprian in his "De lapsis" (A.D. 251) rebukes those who had fallen away in time of persecution, but he also exhorts them to penance: "Let each confess his sin while he is still in this world, while his confession can be received, while satisfaction and the forgiveness granted by the priests is acceptable to God" (c. xxix). (See LAPSI.) The heretic Novatian, on the contrary, asserted that "it is unlawful to admit apostates to the communion of the Church; their forgiveness must be left with God who alone can grant it" (Socrates, Church History V.28). Novatian and his party did not at first deny the power of the Church to absolve from sin; they affirmed that apostasy placed the sinner beyond the reach of that power — an error which was condemned by a synod at Rome in 251. - Catholic Encyclopedia

In the Early Church, confessions was done publicly.

  Three kinds of penance are to be distinguished canonical, prescribed by councils or bishops in the form of "canons" for graver offences. This might be either private, i.e., performed secretly or public i.e., performed in the presence of bishop, clergy and people. When accompanied by certain rites as prescribed in the Canons, it was solemn penance.

  Public penance did not necessarily include a public avowal of sin. As St. Augustine also declares, "If his sin is not only grievous in itself, but involves scandal given to others, and if the bishop [antistes] judges that it will be useful to the Church [to have the sin published], let not the sinner refuse to do penance in the sight of many or even of the people at large, let him not resist, nor through shame add to his mortal wound a greater evil" (Sermo cli, n. 3). - Catholic Encyclopedia

It was the the Church in Ireland in particular followed by the Churches in the British Isles that the notion and practice of private confession and private penance first became the the norm that the Catholic Church took up as the preferred way to administer the sacrament of confession.

  In the British and Irish Churches

  The penitential system in these countries was established simultaneously with the introduction of Christianity, was rapidly developed by episcopal decrees and synodal enactments, and was reduced to definite form in the Penitentials. These books exerted such an influence on the practice in Continental Europe that, according to one opinion, they "first brought order and unity into ecclesiastical discipline in these matters" (Wasserschleben, "Bussordnungen d. abendlandischen Kirche", Halle, 1851, p. 4. — For a different view see Schmitz, "Die Bussbucher u. die Bussdisciplin d. Kirche", Mainz, 1888, p. 187). In any case, it is beyond question that in their belief and practice the Churches of Ireland, England, and Scotland were at one with Rome. The so-called Synod of St. Patrick decrees that a Christian who commits any of the capital sins shall perform a year's penance for each offence and at the end shall "come with witnesses and be absolved by the priest" (Wilkins, "Concilia", I, p. 3). Another synod of St. Patrick ordains that "the Abbot shall decide to whom the power of binding and loosing be committed, but forgiveness is more in keeping with the examples of Scripture; let penance be short, with weeping and lamentation, and a mournful garb, rather than long and tempered with relaxations "(Wilkins, ibid., p. 4). For various opinions regarding the date and origin of the synods, see Haddan and Stubbs, "Councils", II, 331; Bury, "Life of St. Patrick", London, 1905. The confessor was called anmchara (animae carus), i.e., "soul's friend". St. Columba was anmchara to Aidan, Lord of Dalraida, A.D. 574 (Adamnan's "Life of St. Columba", ed. Reeves, p. lxxvi); and Adamnan was "soul's friend" to Finnsnechta, Monarch of Ireland, A.D. 675 (ibid., p. xliii). The "Life of St. Columba" relates the coming of Feachnaus to Iona, where, with weeping and lamentation, he fell at Columba's feet and "before all who were present confessed his sins. Then the Saint weeping with him, said to him: 'Arise, my son and be comforted; thy sins which thou hast committed are forgiven; because, as it is written, a contrite and humble heart God doth not despise,'" (ibid., I, 30). The need and effects of confession are explained in the Leabhar Breac: "Penance frees from all the sins committed after baptism. Every one desirous of a cure for his soul and happiness with the Lord must make an humble and sorrowful confession; and the confession with the prayers of the Church are as baptisms to him. As sickness injures the body, so sin injures the soul; and as there is a cure for the disease of the body, so there is balm for that of the soul. And as the wounds of the body are shown to a physician, so, too, the sores of the soul must be exposed. As he who takes poison is saved by a vomit, so, too, the soul is healed by confession and declaration of his sins with sorrow, and by the prayers of the Church, and a determination henceforth to observe the laws of the Church of God. . . Because Christ left to His Apostles and Church, to the end of the world, the power of loosing and binding."

Slowly but surely the the Church in the medieval period developed this wonderful sacrament into the shape and form we see today.

That said the administration of this sacrament since the 16th century has seen very little changes in the form of administration of this sacrament of reconciliation.

In the question mentioned above the OP mentions that it is the common practice to go to whatever confessor (priest) that is present at a Catholic school for confession.

Just because this is the most common way to go to confession, that does not mean that that this is an absolute norm.

A priest who has the faculties to hear confessions can also carry the title of confessor, especially if the penitent sees a particular priest on a very regular bases for this sacrament.

Religious more often than not have a unique confessor to confess their sins to. Having a single priest to hear one’s sins has more benefits than going to just a random priest. A true confessor in this case can help the faithful (most often a Religious as laypeople generally go to their local pastor or chaplain) advance in holiness, avoiding the occasions of temptations and much more as the priest in this case the know the soul of the penitent much more intimately.

The practice is not limited to Religious and I would highly recommend this to everyone.

It is also true that he confessors of Religious are generally appointed to a particular convent or Religious Order, it is not an absolute rule or guideline. Generally speaking Benedictine Religious (monks or nuns) will have a number of spiritual confessors that are also Benedictine priests also typically called a spiritual director.

This is the type of confessor that St. Theresa of the Child Jesus and St. Gemma had. This option has always been available to go to confession to a priest in whom one is more comfortable with and in whom one is at ease in gaining more spiritual insights on how to become a saint.

Another manner to confess one’s sins is called as St. Francis de Sales and other saints is a general confession.

  A General Confession  as understood by St. Ignatius of Loyola is a form of Confession whereby one spends 3 to 10 days preparing for a confession of all one's 'sins up to that time.' The main goal of the "general confession" is to turn one's life from one of sin to a more devout one. The Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius have done much to popularise this form of confession, with such a confession being the significant end-point of the First Week of his Spiritual Exercises.

Although not necessary for eternal salvation, this is the practice of many Religious prior to taking simple vows.

In closing I would like to simply add one more point. And this is new (1986). This sacrament is so important that in the Code of Canon Law, the Church allows the faithful to go to confession to non-Catholic priests with valid sacraments such as in the Orthodox Churches in the case of an emergency.

  Can. 844 §1. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone, without prejudice to the prescripts of §§2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and can. 861, §2.

  §2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

Thus since the 16th century very little has truly changed in form of this sacrament. We should simple be aware that other forms in the administration of this wonderful sacrament have always traditionally existed.


How was the word preached in NT era churches? In many churches today, the word is preached as follows:

a pastor / priest talks for the entirety of the meeting (generally 1 hour)
a large group of Christians listen.

In the Watchmen Nee inspired Local Churches we have:

a group structure where, anyone who is a member stands up and speaks
instead of having 1 person speak for 1 hour, numerous people speak for 3-5 minutes each

While Christ was on the earth, there are numerous situations where:

a large group of Christians listened
Christ preached

Now, in the book of Acts does Church still maintain this structure? In particular, in the various churches in the book of Acts, during meetings, was it:

choice A = 1 person speak for an hour

or
choice B = lots of people speak for 3-5 minutes each

Now, I know it may not be exactly either of the above—but what was it closer to? A single person speaking, or many people speaking short amounts of time?

It was apparently one person doing the speaking for at least until the churches were well established.

All Scripture is quoted from the King James translation, unless otherwise noted.

  Matthew 28:18 through 20  And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 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: 20  Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

This would have necessitated that those do all of the talking since they would be the ones with the knowledge.

Paul was the founder of many Churches in the Gentile world, and from the following Scriptures we see that he did the talking.

  Acts 20:7  And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

The church at Jerusalem on the other hand was born out of the synagogues, and may have followed those old traditions:

  Luke 4:16 through 19  And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read. 17  And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, 18  The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, 19  To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

It appears that it was common for others in the synagogue to read scripture and then comment on them.

So the answer to your question may be both, judging from what we can derive from Scriptures.


How many Jews were there at exodus? According to Gen 46:27, Jacob entered Egypt with a family of 70. Kohath was Levi's son, Amram Kohath's, and Moses Amram's, so Moses's generation was 2 generations from Kohath's. 600,000 men, with women and children, left at exodus (Ex 12:37).

Meanwhile, before Moses was born, pharaoh ordered, that all male children from then on have to be killed. Moses survived miraculously, so 600,000 has to refer to men from generation above. Roughly estimating, 35 women (half of 70 that entered Egypt), gave birth to 1,200,000 people, which gives a fertility rate of about 34,285 (assuming 0 mortality). This seems quite large.
Moreover, if we assume that Jews didn't stop procreating with pharaoh's command, at that fertility rate, there would be about 20 billion women in Moses's generation.

Further, despite lacking partners from same generation, they could be impregnated by their uncles (Moses's mother was the aunt of his father, so it probably wasn't that uncommon), which would push the number even further.

Such numbers are very unlikely, and since Bible is inerrant, can you help me find error in my reasoning?

There are two things you're missing:

The time from Jacob's arrival in Egypt to the nation's liberation under Moses was roughly 400 years.
It is a common (but often missed and misunderstood) practice in biblical genealogies to "telescope" the list of names, focusing only on key individuals in the list.  (Going along with this, the word translated as "father" can mean a person's actual parent, or it can mean a more distant ancestor.)

Referring to this source for example, the article states the following concerning the period of time you're looking at:

  In the Old Testament period, it was important for every Jew to be able
  to trace his lineage back to prove his tribal affiliation—it was even
  more important for Levites and the descendants of Aaron in order to
  prove they were qualified to be priests (see Ezra 2:59–63). So we can
  see that in Moses’ day, he is said to be the descendant of Levi,
  Kohath, and Amram. This is supposed to cover a period of 400 years,
  and we’re given enough generations to cover just about ¼ of that.
  That’s not a problem however; the genealogy isn’t concerned with
  giving an exhaustive list of ancestors; just enough to tell us where
  Moses comes from. So we have Levi and his son, along with Moses’
  father.

So as Cerulean Chelonii noted, the four centuries between Jacob and Moses was plenty of time to allow the population to reach the numbers given at their first census.


How can a Pope be chosen from outside the conclave? It is well known that the cardinals can choose any baptised male Catholic to be the new Pope, though they typically choose one of their own, and that the election is held under strict conditions of secrecy.

What procedure is followed when the chosen candidate is not one of the cardinals already in the conclave, and how is secrecy maintained?

There is a fair bit of precedent, though none of it is very recent. The provisions are found not in Universi Dominici Gregis itself, but in the companion book of ritual, Ordo rituum conclavis (see UDG §90). This 2005 edition is the latest in a series first codified in 1516 and frequently republished.1 I do not know if the 2005 version makes any changes to this rule, but if it did, it would be the first since 1516.

The procedure is actually quite simple. Ultimately, the person chosen has to accept or refuse his election, and so either he has to come to the college, or they have to go to him.

If the person chosen is in or near Rome, then he is summoned to the conclave, and asked if he accepts the election. If it's a yes, then he becomes Pope; otherwise, he doesn't, and the cardinals go on to elect someone else. A notable example of this process - and the most recent example of a non-cardinal being chosen - was the election of Urban VI in 1378. In order to preserve secrecy, the conclave summoned several decoy clerics at the same time.
If he is further away (the text says aliquos dies - a few days' travel) then the election is announced and the conclave breaks up. They draw up documents certifying the election, and send a delegation of cardinals to the person they've chosen. If he accepts, then he becomes Pope, and they all go to Rome for the rest of the usual ceremony. Otherwise, the delegation would return alone, and the conclave would resume - but this has never happened. An example is the election of Gregory X in 1271, who was off crusading with Edward I of England.

In modern times, the second process is quite unlikely to happen. The most plausible candidates for Pope who would not already be in the conclave are (1) cardinals above the age of 80, like Francis Arinze, who might well be in Rome anyway, and (2) bishops of important sees, who would tend to live in major cities that are well-connected to Rome by air travel. But there is no strict dividing line: it's up to the cardinals to decide which procedure would work best in the given circumstances (UDG §5).

The person elected is told why they are being summoned - although it wouldn't be too hard for them to guess. They can't tell anyone else, though! (I don't know if the decoys in 1378 knew they were decoys, or if they had a disappointing surprise.) There is no oath provided, unlike for the electors or their assistants, but if there were any doubt about whether secrecy was required, UDG §5 or Secreta continere (1974) §§7, 10 would seem to give ample scope for imposing it.

Speculation: In the same way, if the cardinals felt it necessary, they could arrange for dummy smoke signals to be sent out. (The white smoke / black smoke system is not prescribed in law: although the ballots must be burned, there's nothing to say what colour the smoke should be.) This would disguise the fact that balloting was not taking place, while they were waiting for the chosen person to arrive, and so the world's media wouldn't be encouraged to start scouring the area, hanging around Da Vinci airport, etc., in the hopes of finding out who had been summoned; and the waiting crowds wouldn't be misled into thinking that the new Pope was going to appear on the balcony quite soon.

1. The 1516 book Rituum ecclesiasticorum sive sacrarum caeremoniarum Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae contains provisions on Papal election and coronation, from the work of Agostino Patrizi Piccolomini (1435-1495), who was Master of Apostolic Ceremonies and Bishop of Pienza. He drew on less systematic accounts from as early as the seventh century.


What do Southern Baptists believe about Predestination? It seems that some doctrines and beliefs are not taught openly.  I was curious, what is the Southern Baptist doctrine regarding predestination?

Do they believe in unconditional election or complete lack of free will?

Historically, Baptists drew from both the Calvinist (Predestination) and Arminian (Free Will) soteriologies.  Early Baptists were first and foremost dissenters - people who disliked the establishment churches of England and Virginia.

What drew them together was not soteriology but rather a disdain for establishment church.

The Puritans in particular (one set of proto-Baptists) were basically Calvinist. Many of the more famous English baptists - John Bunyan (1600s), William Carey (early 1800s), Charles Spurgeon (late 1800s), were all Particular Baptists. Many of their kin settled in Virginia and Massachusetts (or like Roger Williams in 1636 were kicked out and stuck in Rhode Island), and helped to form the basis of Baptists in the United States.

When the Baptist movement spread during the two Great Awakenings of the 1700s, much of it was fueled by charismatic Arminians, such as the Wesley brothers. In the 1700s in particular, Baptists and Methodists both were very closely related - the primary distinction between the two was the autonomy of the local congregation. Methodists had bishops, Baptists had "associations."

By the time Baptists were allowed to practice freely (1786 is a good year) both stances were evident.

Eventually, there were two main camps of Baptists - "General" Baptists who believed in General atonement, i.e. anyone who chose (i.e. free will) to believe in Christ.  In contrast, "Particular" Baptists were Calvinists, who believed in Limited Atonement.  These are the Baptists who wrote the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, one of the closest things to a "founding Baptist creed" you'll get from a Baptist.  As you would expect from a Calvinist, they believed in predestination - i.e. that God has foreknown whom he would save from before the beginning of time.

When the Southern Baptist Convention was formed in 1845, the issues that divided Baptists had far more to do with whether or not Sunday schools and missionary work were important, than the means of salvation.  (Actually, the argument against was predicated on the belief that if God had already chosen who was saved, then it was just a waste of resources to invest in those things.  That didn't stop a a guy like William Carey, though, because he realized that even the elect should work to help the elect who didn't know they were saved to be saved!)

More to the point for Southerners was whether or not missionaries could own slaves.  The SBC has acknowledged this was their genesis, and apologized for it in the 1990s.

Throughout all of this, both strains of salvation continued through all the denominations, although many of the more prominent current Baptists (Paige Patterson, Al Mohler) are definately of the Calvinst persuasion.

That said, the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message is clearly ambivelent on the matter.

Section 4. Salvation says:

  Salvation involves the redemption of the whole man, and is offered freely to all who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, who by His own blood obtained eternal redemption for the believer. In its broadest sense salvation includes regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification. There is no salvation apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord.

implying free will

Section 5. Grace says:

  Election is the gracious purpose of God, according to which He regenerates, justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies sinners. It is consistent with the free agency of man, and comprehends all the means in connection with the end. It is the glorious display of God's sovereign goodness, and is infinitely wise, holy, and unchangeable. It excludes boasting and promotes humility. All true believers endure to the end.

which could come out of the Tu-lips of Calvin himself.

Incidently, there is a Free Will Baptists denomination who are most definately Arminian in their soteriology.

tl;dr
In short, Baptists have always been both.


Mark and Paul's view that 2nd coming would be in their lifetime How do you explain how Mark (and Paul) thought that Jesus was going to come again (2nd coming) in their lifetimes, when this has not occurred even to this day?

  And he said to them, “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.”

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+9

There are also references to how Paul says that there is no point getting married or that even the goods that you purchase are of no use (you won't have time to enjoy them) as the 2nd coming will happen in a twinkle of an eye.

This refers to Matthew 17, the transfiguration.  So the Word from Christ is indeed fulfilled.

Edit: My apologies for being too brief.

Matthew 17 and the scripture you quoted, Mark 9, both reveal the answer to Christ's words.  The sight of God's kingdom was the Transfiguration, the disciples present saw Elijah and Moses, who are in heaven, momentarily, and then heard the voice of God speak, which caused them to fall on their faces.

To address the second point, I'd look at 1 Corinthians 7:6-7 where Paul instructs people to marry if they so please, or to stay unmarried.

  6 But I say this as a concession, not as a commandment. 7 For I wish
  that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from
  God, one in this manner and another in that.

  8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if
  they remain even as I am; 9 but if they cannot exercise self-control,
  let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

The twinkling of an eye passage I think you are referring to is 1 Corinthians 15:51-52.

  51 Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall
  all be changed— 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the
  last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised
  incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

This is referring to Rapture, where we do not die but instead are changed; this is often referred to the spiritual body in non-denom Christianity, and it occurs in the last days.

Hopefully this is more helpful than my original answer!


When and how can a pope revoke the decrees of an ecumenical council? I recently learned that Pope John XXI revoked a decree passed at the Second Council of Lyon (1274).  The Catholic Encyclopedia reads:

  Gregory X, to avoid a repetition of the too lengthy vacancies of the papal see, caused it to be decided that the cardinals should not leave the conclave till the pope had been elected. This constitution which inflicted certain material privations on the cardinals if the election was too long delayed, was suspended in 1276 by Adrian V, and a few months later revoked by John XXI.

In another article, the CE says that John XXI's action was done "with the consent of the cardinals," but it's not clear to me if such consent was strictly necessary.

The Second Council of Lyon was the fourteenth ecumenical council, and I thought that ecumenical councils were binding.  But it doesn't sound like this revocation is seen as problematic in Catholicism.  Why not?  Under what conditions is it acceptable for a pope to revoke an ecumenical council's decrees?

Faith and Morals/Discipline

  Gregory X, to avoid a repetition of the too lengthy vacancies of the papal see, caused it to be decided that the cardinals should not leave the conclave till the pope had been elected. This constitution which inflicted certain material privations on the cardinals if the election was too long delayed, was suspended in 1276 by Adrian V, and a few months later revoked by John XXI

This amounts to a disciplinary matter being decreed, and then revoked. Whereas matters of faith and morals—the Church teaching matters of the Faith, which may, under certain circumstances, enjoy infallibility 1—are by nature irreformable, as they pertain to that which is a truth of the Faith (e.g. the divinity of the Holy Ghost).

The Two Kinds of Decrees by a Council

The Catholic Encyclopedia, in its article for Infalliblity, references the Council held by the Apostles and bishops in Jerusalem (recorded in Acts 15). There were two aspects to the 'decrees' that came out of this Council. Though it is pre-ecumenical, it has, like other Councils, the following basic 'format':

Issue/Heresy at Hand

15:1 "Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."

Meeting of Bishops

15:6 "The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter."

Pope Settles Matter, Ultimately

15:8 "After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them..." 15:12 "All the people kept silent..."

Council Document(s) Crystallizing the Outcome

15:23-29

Council Ratified

15:28 "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these"

In this Council, as in most, there are the disciplinary matters (or, regulations):

  Acts 15:28-29

  For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay no further burden upon you than these necessary things: That you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which things keeping yourselves, you shall do well. Fare ye well.

And the matters of faith and morals (of prime importance—here, how one is reconciled to God by faith; with or without circumcision):

  Acts 15:7-12
  And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to
  them: Men, brethren, you know, that in former days God made choice
  among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the
  gospel, and believe. And God, who knoweth the hearts, gave
  testimony, giving unto them the Holy Ghost, as well as to us; And
  put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by
  faith. Now therefore, why tempt you God to put a yoke upon the
  necks of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we have been
  able to bear? But by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we believe
  to be saved, in like manner as they also. And all the multitude
  held their peace...

Of course, since the Holy Ghost approved of their disciplinary decision, and thus is was infallible in that sense, and in this special, explicitly revealed case, it's not necessarily the case that a matter of discipline is the best, is ideal etc. Only matters of faith and morals, as the Pope teaching Christ's flock (cf. Lk 22:32; Jn 21:15-17), can enjoy infallibility (and therefore irreformable) under the respective circumstances.

A Real-Life Example

A real-life example from a real Ecumenical Council, take the first of them all, Nicaea I, canon 20:

  Forasmuch as there are certain persons who kneel on the Lord's Day and
  in the days of Pentecost, therefore, to the intent that all things may
  be uniformly observed everywhere (in every parish), it seems good to
  the holy Synod that prayer be made to God standing.

Or canon 4:

  It is by all means proper that a bishop should be appointed by all the
  bishops in the province; but should this be difficult, either on
  account of urgent necessity or because of distance, three at least
  should meet together, and the suffrages of the absent [bishops] also
  being given and communicated in writing, then the ordination should
  take place. But in every province the ratification of what is done
  should be left to the Metropolitan.

These are matters of discipline, and do not concern the Faith directly.

This (Creed/Ecthesis of the Synod at Nice):

  ...And whosoever shall say that there was a time when the Son of God was
  not (ἤν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν), or that before he was begotten he was not,
  or that he was made of things that were not, or that he is of a
  different substance or essence [from the Father] or that he is a
  creature, or subject to change or conversion — all that so say, the
  Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them.

Are matters of faith and morals.

You said,

  In another article, the CE says that John XXI's action was done "with the consent of the cardinals," but it's not clear to me if such consent was strictly necessary.

Such a consent is not necessary for the kind of infallible statement issued by a Pope 'ex cathedra,'2 nor to revoke what is but a disciplinary matter (and therefore reformable by nature).

Pope Pius IX, Vatican I, Session 4, cap. 4, 9:

  Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the
  beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our Savior, for
  the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the
  Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach
  and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff
  speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as
  shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme
  apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals
  to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance
  promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine
  Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning
  faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are
  of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

  Under what conditions is it acceptable for a pope to revoke an
  ecumenical council's decrees?

Under any, really: as long as said decrees are concerned with disciplinary matters (not intrinsically defined based on or dependant purely upon some dogma or matter of faith) which are by nature always revokable.

Possible Controversy

A controversial area is where discipline and faith and morals meet or are so connected as to make it unsure just what can be reformed. An example is when Pope Pius V, in a document called Quo Primum, forbade the changing of the Roman Rite of the Mass henceforth and forever, by anyone whoever:

  ...for its most becoming that there be in the Church only one appropriate manner of reciting the Psalms and only one rite for the celebration of Mass . . . Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us. This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world, to all patriarchs, cathedral churches, collegiate and parish churches, be they secular or religious, both of men and of women – even of military orders – and of churches or chapels without a specific congregation in which conventual Masses are sung aloud in choir or read privately in accord with the rites and customs of the Roman Church. This Missal is to be used by all churches, even by those which in their authorization are made exempt, whether by Apostolic indult, custom, or privilege, or even if by oath or official confirmation of the Holy See, or have their rights and faculties guaranteed to them by any other manner whatsoever.

  This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in which most cases We in no wise rescind their above-mentioned prerogative or custom . . .

  We specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator, and all other persons or whatever ecclesiastical dignity they may be, be they even cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, or possessed of any other rank or pre-eminence, and We order them in virtue of holy obedience to chant or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herewith laid down by Us and, hereafter, to discontinue and completely discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals, however ancient, which they have customarily followed; and they must not in celebrating Mass presume to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal

He considered it important enough a decision that he said:

  ...no one whosoever is permitted to alter this...statute, ordinance,
  command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and
  prohibition. Would anyone, however, presume to commit such an act, he
  should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the
  Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.

Or the very much analagous canon of the Council of Trent (Session 7, canon 13):

  "If anyone says that the received and approved rites customarily used
  in the Catholic Church for the solemn administration of the Sacraments
  can be changed into other new rites by any pastor in the Church
  whosoever, let him be anathema."

(Let him be anathema means outside of the Church, excommunicated ipso facto— heretic, not a member of the Church, hence its original meaning—'under God's curse'—applies only to members of the Church who would presume to commit such a heresy etc).

The controversy being that Pope Paul VI did precisely this, in changing the Roman Rite of the Mass. Since it is technically a matter of discipline, though, this amounts to disobedience to Pope Pius V's solemn decree and wish or ("Our...statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition")—("It is Our will, therefore, and by the same authority, We decree that, after We publish this constitution and the edition of the Missal, the priests of the Roman Curia are, after thirty days, obliged to chant or read the Mass according to it")—and not outright heresy. So goes one side of the controversy among Traditional Catholics:) It could be argued that Pope St. Pius V simply overreached with his power to bind to a disciplinary matter and so it has no more effect than an otherwise mundane disciplinary wish or statute. It could also be argued that there was no sufficient reason to alter said Rite.

However, as in the case of your question and that decree, the disciplinary matter of making sure a Pope is elected quickly to avoid a prolonged period of sede vacante (no Pope) (your question), this is not in question at all. It is clearly a matter of discipline.

Judgement over any confusion (or interpretation of Church teaching in general), however, is left in the hands of the Pope and the Church, of course, not to the individual.

As the Catholic Encyclopedia mentions in the abovementioned article on infalliblity:

  ...the Church is infallible in her objective definitive teaching
  regarding faith and morals, not that believers are infallible in their
  subjective interpretation of her teaching. This is obvious in the case
  of individuals, any one of whom may err in his understanding of the
  Church's teaching; nor is the general or even unanimous consent of the
  faithful in believing a distinct and independent organ of
  infallibility.

1 Catholic Encyclopedia, Infallibility | Wikipedia, Papal Infallibility (from the teaching of Pius IX, Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus)

2 'ex cathedra,' that is, 'from the chair' [of Peter]—not literally; refers to a specific kind of authoritative statement or decree, or excercising of a certain office as Pope; cf. Matthew 23:1-3


What are Christians trusting God about, when in fallen world circumstance? For example, a woman lives in a physically abusive marriage or a teenager lives in an area where a gang determines what they can and can't do. (i.e. - situations that are chronic and very difficult to transcend.)

They go to church and hear they need to trust God.

Should they be trusting that this is what God wants for their life or something else?

How can trusting God in these circumstances be justified?

What I would get from that (vague) statement is that, in spite of everything that I think is wrong or can't understand, trust that God exists - that I'm not alone.  Trust that as bleak and hopeless as things may seem, that God is still there, even if He doesn't magically make everything perfect.

There is much that I think is wrong and can't understand... but I also believe that God does have bigger plans or has a larger view.  I have to trust that, no matter what my pains, fears, or disappointments here are, on a larger scale or a higher plane or however you want to phrase it, God is still watching (over) and will make things right.

Note, I don't know what form "will make things right" will take... it may be as simple as "Welcome home, I know that was hard, but it's all over now."  And, technically, I don't "KNOW" that it will happen, but I BELIEVE that it will happen.  And that is the "trust" that I put in God.


Is Jesus eternally the Son of God the Father? Throughout scripture Jesus is identified as the “only begotten of the Father”.   Is Jesus eternally the Only Begotten of the Father or did He become the Son at His incarnation?

Scripture to me seems clear that Jesus is eternally the begotten of the Father, which imposes an eternal "family" dynamic within the Godhead.  Do Christians generally agree with this perspective and if not how do they view the sonship of Christ?

The Nicene Creed (Wikipedia: "It forms the mainstream definition of Christianity for most Christians.") answers this question (emphasis added):

  And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
  the only begotten Son of God,
  begotten of his Father before all worlds,
  God of God, Light of Light,
  very God of very God,
  begotten, not made,
  being of one substance with the Father;
  by whom all things were made;


144,000: is there any denomination or group holding this symbolic interpretation? Motivation: We know that a way to express fullness or completion in Hebrew is to double the word, e.g. Isaiah 26:3 speaks of perfect peace as shalom shalom.  And there are clear cases in Revelation where the author uses doubles; in fact, at 5:11 he doubles the double! (Myriad myriad, and thousand thousand angels).

My speculation: When we read of the 144,000 (at 12:4) perhaps this could mean something like a perfect completion of multitudes (?) fitting in with verse 9.  Of course, an obvious counter would be "But he specifies 12,000 coming from each of the tribes of Israel." Got it.

Yet I wonder if there is still a symbolism going on here.  The 12 tribes have corresponding gemstones, as on the high priest's garments -- see Ex 28:21; the gemstones  in turn correspond to zodiacal constellations (see, for example, this link http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds/meridian/2005/12stones.html).  And it does not seem like too big a stretch to also see those constellations as representative of all nations and tribes and so on, since they circle the earth.

My question: Does anyone know of a denomination, school of thought, or theologian holding this symbolic view, or a compatible view?

The Christian theologian Emanuel Swedenborg (1688–1772) holds a compatible view. Here is his interpretation of the 144,000, from his book Apocalypse Revealed #348:

  And I heard the number of those who were sealed, one hundred and forty-four thousand. (Revelation 7:4) This symbolizes all people who
  acknowledge the Lord [Jesus Christ] as God of heaven and earth and are
  governed by truths of doctrine springing from the goodness of love,
  received from Him through the Word [the Bible].

  These are symbolized by the number 144,000 from the twelve tribes of
  Israel because the twelve tribes of Israel symbolize a church that
  consists of people who possess goodness and truth from the Lord and
  acknowledge Him as God of heaven and earth. The number 144,000 means
  all such. For that number has the same symbolism as the number twelve,
  since it is the product of twelve times twelve, which is then
  multiplied by 1000; and any number multiplied by itself and then by
  10, 100, or 1000, has the same symbolism as the original number. Thus
  the number 144,000 has the same symbolism as 144, and this the same
  symbolism as twelve, as 144 is the product of twelve times twelve.
  Similarly, the product of the 12,000 sealed from each tribe times
  twelve is 144,000.

  The number twelve means, symbolically, all, and is predicated of
  truths springing from goodness, because twelve is the product of three
  times four, and the number three symbolizes everything connected with
  truth, and the number four, everything connected with good. Thus the
  number twelve here symbolizes everything connected with truth that
  springs from the goodness of love.

You can read the full interpretation in Apocalypse Revealed #348 here.

Swedenborg's interpretation provides the basis for the understanding of the 144,000 among the various denominations of Swedenborgians.

Most Swedenborgians do not interpret Swedenborg's use of "church" here to refer to any specific denomination, including their own. Rather, they follow Swedenborg's cue and think of "the church" as "all people who acknowledge the Lord as God of heaven and earth and are governed by truths of doctrine springing from the goodness of love, received from Him through the Word." In other words, being part of "the church" is based not on denominational affiliation, but on belief in Jesus as God and on living according to divine truth and love as taught in the Bible.

So Swedenborgians—especially the more liberal ones—commonly accept all heartfelt and Bible-believing Christians everywhere as included symbolically in the 144,000.


Did the ancient Hebrews believe that blood had unique spiritual properties? I seem to recall learning at some point during an Old Testament study that they did, and that the belief explained things like the significance of the blood that was part of the animal offerings required in the Pentateuch.

We're trying, in this question, to track down the significance behind an apparent New Testament dietary prohibition against the consumption of animal blood, as given in Acts 15:10.

Such a belief is clearly expressed in both Genesis and Leviticus.

  Genesis 9:4

  But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye
  not eat.

  Leviticus 17:11-14

  11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to
  you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the
  blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

  12 Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall
  eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat
  blood.

  13 And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the
  strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast
  or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof,
  and cover it with dust.

  14 For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life
  thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat
  the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the
  blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.

In both cases, the blood-as-life theory is used specifically as the reason why eating blood should be forbidden.


How to appropriately reply to "You're going to hell"? According to global Christianity, what is the most Christlike way to respond to someone who randomly walks up to you and says, "You're going to hell"?

How to reply to “You're going to hell”?

”May God mercy on my soul and yours as well.” And remember well that we will both face our Eternal Judge some day!

  "May God have mercy upon your soul" or "may God have mercy on your soul" is a phrase used within courts in various legal systems by judges pronouncing a sentence of death upon a person found guilty of a crime that requires a death sentence. The phrase originated in beth din courts in the Kingdom of Israel as a way to attribute God as the highest authority in law. The usage of the phrase later spread to England and Wales' legal system and from there to usage throughout the colonies of the British Empire whenever a death sentence was passed.

  Depending on where it is used, the phrase has had different emphasis through the years. It was formally intended as a prayer for the soul of the condemned. However, in later times, particularly in the United States, it has only been said as a result of legal tradition where the religious meaning and origin is not founded on belief. - May God have mercy upon your soul


Why did Clement of Alexandria say that the name of Jesus, Iesous, has a Greek origin, not a Hebrew one? Did Clement of Alexandria actually believe that Jesus was called Iesous in Greek and that it wasn't a translation of the Hebrew?

Wikipedia cites the Catholic Encyclopedia's entry on the Origin of the Name of Jesus Christ:

  [Cyril of Jerusalem], however, appears to agree with Clement of Alexandria in considering the word Iesous as of Greek origin (The Pedagogue III.12)

But this doesn't seem to be addressed in that section of The Pedagogue.

From the Wikipedia article in the original post:

  The English form of the name "Jesus" is derived from the Latin Iēsus, which in turn comes from the Greek Ἰησοῦς (Iēsoûs). The Greek is a Hellenized form of the Hebrew name Yēšua (ישוע), which is in turn a shortened form of Hebrew Yehōšua (יהושע) or "Joshua" in English.

"Iesous" is not a Greek translation of the Hebrew "Yehosua", because it isn't a Greek word that means the same thing as the Hebrew word.  It is, rather, a transliteration, an adaptation of the word itself to the Greek alphabet and Greek word-building conventions.  (An example of translation would be Christos, from which we take the word "Christ."  It means the same thing in Greek as Messiah means in Hebrew, despite being very different actual words.)

It's not uncommon for words to be slightly mangled in transliteration, especially between languages with different alphabets.  For example, have you ever been to a Chinese restaurant and seen Peking duck on the menu? If you look at a map of China today, you won't find a place called "Peking" anywhere, because in the 1950s China came up with a new system of transliterating Chinese names to the Latin alphabet to more closely match the way the names are supposed to sound, and these days the city that used to be known as Peking in English is now written as "Beijing."


How is Jesus God's final word? (Protestant Perspective) The Youth Catechism of the Catholic Church states plainly (emphasis added):

  In Jesus Christ, God himself came to earth. He is God's last Word.

Indeed, some modern English translations of the New Testament present Chapter titles for Hebrews 1 that echo this sentiment: God's final word: His Son (NIV), God's Final Word in His Son (NASB), God's Supreme Revelation (NKJV). Hebrews 1:1-2 says,

  God, having spoken earlier at many times and in many ways through the Prophets, spoke to us in these last days by the Son, who he established heir over all things and through whom he made the ages.

From a sola-scriptura protestant perspective, what does it mean that Jesus is  God's last word? Has God spoken to man in the time since Jesus' teaching? If so, by what method has he done so?

The final word refers to the final revelation, in practical terms Matthew to Revelation.  There is no Scripture after this or above it. In the past God 'gradually' over a long period revealed his word, bit-by-bit, shadow-by-shadow but when Christ came he brought the final conclusion in the gospel of grace and truth.

  For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. (NIV, Jn 1:17 )

And

  In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. (NIV, Heb 1:1-2)

In the same short period he also established all remaining doctrines necessary for the church through the Apostles and forever closed up into the canon of scripture.

This final revelation was initiated at the time of Christ ending very shortly after. Its glory and superiority is based on the directness of its communication in that God himself through the incarnation spoke it to men as a man. We are not to expect any new revelation and supplemental books such as the Koran, or other books various Christian sects have claimed to have been given as a supplement in the last few hundred years.