What evidence is available that Mt. Moriah is actually the Temple Mount? In Sunday school this week we discussed (among several other things) the sacrifice of Isaac.

The teacher pointed us to a footnote that appears in several editions of the scripture. It seems that scholars think that Mount Moriah, where Abraham was told to go to sacrifice his son is now the location of the Dome of the Rock, which makes it the historic location of the temple, and just a few hundred yards from the historic location of Golgotha.

What historic, archeological and traditional evidence is available to confirm this theory?

The obvious answer to the question is yes, the first Temple was built on Mount Moriah.  II Chronicles 3:1 says as much:

Then Solomon began to build the house of the LORD in Jerusalem on Mount Moriah, where the LORD had appeared to David his father, at the place that David had appointed, on the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite. (ESV)

and there is no particular reason to doubt that was the real name of the place the Temple was built.  Of course, that isn't really the question being asked - the real question is, is "Mount Moriah" the same place as 1) where the Dome of the Rock now sits and 2) the place where Abraham offered up Isaac as a sacrifice.
Dome of the Rock site?
On the first question, the only clue in the text is that the Temple was built on the "threshing floor of Ornan".  In ancient times, threshing floors had to be in open spaces and were usually on high ground.  These two traits allowed the people to maximize the power of the wind to help separate the the grains from the chaff.  The hill of the Dome of the Rock would be an excellent place for such activity.  Because it is reasonable to think the people of Israel accurately remembered the place of their sacred temple, the fact that there is no alternative tradition, and the fact the hill matches the description

the majority of scholars, archaeologists, and rabbinic authorities [locate] the Temple in relation to that rock.1

This view has not been universally held by scholars, however.  Nineteenth century archaeologist Charles Warren suggested the correct site was 50 meters to the southwest, at the Mount of Olives.  This view has significant difficulties and is not supported today.  A more recent theory is that the Temple was to the north of the Dome of the Rock under what is now the Dome of the Spirits.  This theory was endorsed by some evangelical Christians, but seems to be too small of a site and has been roundly criticized by archaeologists.1
Another recent alternate proposed that the Temple was further south than Warren's location.  In this theory, the Wailing Wall remnants that survive are not part of the Temple complex, but rather an effort by Hadrian to install a temple to Jupiter in the second century.  This theory has been utterly refuted by archaeological finds at the Wailing Wall which include a stone inscription apparently describing the Sabbath and by the absurdity of this hypothesis' reliance on a site 50 feet lower the current platform and 30 feet lower than the remaining wall.1
Sacrificial site?
On the second question, the evidence is much more mixed.  Looking solely at the Biblical text is inconclusive.  Genesis 22:2 says simply that Abraham went up "one of the mountains" in the "land of Moriah".  The Septuagint version is even vaguer:

And he said, Take thy son, the beloved one, whom thou hast loved—Isaac, and go into the high land, and offer him there for a whole-burnt-offering on one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.2

The three extant Targums (which are interpretative translations into Aramaic) read:

...get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt-offering upon one of the mountains
...go into the land of worship (in a variant: "vision") and offer him before Me there, a burnt offering, upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee.
...go into the land of worship, and offer him there, a whole burnt offering, upon one of the mountains3

Interestingly, the fragmentary "Jerusalem" Targum does preserve "at Mount Moriah" but without any of the surrounding context.3
This suggests to me that the tradition that the two were the same place was at minimum not deeply entrenched into Hebrew thought when the translations were made.  Additionally, there is a good reason translations often do not treat "Moriah" as proper name in Gen 22:2:

This is probably due to the definite article with Moriah (el eres hammoriya, lit. "to the land of the Moriah"), which is uncommon for a proper name.4

Additionally, there are logistic problems.  The city of Jerusalem had apparently been founded by the time of Abraham.  This can be seen by Genesis 14:18, which talks about "Melchizedek king of Salem".  Salem is known to me an older form of Jerusalem;5 see for example Psalm 76:2 ("His tent is in Salem, his dwelling place in Zion.", NIV).  Archaeological evidence confirms that the city was inhabited in c. 3000 BC, and possibly earlier.6  According to the Biblical account, Abraham lived in the vicinity of 2000 BC,7 which means he would be making his sacrifice in plain view of the city, and also means it is unlikely there would be a wild goat.
In favor of the association there is Josephus, writing around 100-200 after the Targums:

Accordingly [God] commanded [Abraham] to carry [Isaac] to the mountain Moriah, and to build an altar, and offer him for a burnt-offering upon it: for that this would best manifest his religious disposition towards him, if he preferred what was pleasing to God, before the preservation of his own son.8

In the Talmud, we find:

What is the meaning of “Mount Moriah?” Rabbi Levi bar Chama and Rabbi Chanina disputed this point. One said: “The mount from which teaching (הוראה) went out.” The other said: “The Mountain from which fear went out to the idolaters.”9

which apparently both suggest Jerusalem as a location.  However, a different interpretation is offered elsewhere in the Talmud:

I heard a different interpretation: “Mount Moriah” – that is Mount Sinai. “Fear to the idolators” – at the giving of the Torah, as it states (Psalms 76:9): “The world heard and was quiet.”9

This Rabbi associates Moriah, not with Jerusalem, but instead with Mount Sinai.
Conclusion
The tradition on the site of the Temple being the same spot that now houses the Dome of the Rock is very strong.  And the tradition matches the physical evidence.
In contrast, the tradition on the site of Abraham's sacrifice is variant.  The association with the site of the Temple also doesn't match the physical evidence very well.  Therefore, I think the Temple site and the site of Abraham's sacrifice are most likely different sites.
What then to make of Chronicles
It has been suggested that the author of Chronicles "inserted" the name Moriah into the Temple account to give the Temple a symbolic link to Abraham.  However, this view is unlikely for a number of reasons:10

The writer of Chronicles is generally uninterested in the history of Israel before the founding of the monarchy
There is no evidence the term "Moriah" was strongly linked to Abraham
If it is a reference, it is a very vague.  If the writer of Chronicles wanted to draw the the parallel, he has left us no clues in the text (in contrast to the explicit reference to David).   Why not write "Moriah, the site of Abraham" or something similar, or at least provide some clue, if that was the intent?

An alternative suggestion, is that the term was inserted into Genesis.  This seems even less likely, as why then would the scribe insert into into the "land" part of the passage and learn "one of the mountains".
The normal solution offered to explain the two clearly different uses of the term is that term Moriah referred to a large expanse of mountainous land which included the specific hill on which the Temple was built.4  Thus, both passages are accurate, but do not refer to the exact same patch of land; Mount Moriah is part of the land of Moriah, but not the mountain God told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac on.
An alternate hypothesis of my own is that the Israelites chose to name the Temple Mount after Abraham.  A place doesn't have an intrinsic name, after all...  Perhaps the easiest solution of all is that it is simply a coincidence.  The uncertainly of the translation of Gen 22:2 (see Septuagint & Tarmud translations above), makes coincidence a perfectly plausible suggestion - if the terms had different meanings, then their use to describe different places it not at all surprising.
None of these hypotheses can be strongly argued for, but the "scribal alteration" idea can be argued against.  All we can say with confidence is that the exact meaning of "the lands of the Moriah" is probably lost to time.  This does not, however, change the basic conclusion that 1) Mount Moriah is the site of Dome of the Rock and 2) it is most likely not the site of Abraham's sacrificial offering.

1Contested Holiness by Rivka Gonen
2Brenton's translation
3Jewish Publication Society
4Genesis 11:27-50:26 by K.A. Matthews
5See this SE answer for more details
6History of Jerusalem from Its Beginning to David by the Ingeborg Rennert Center for Jerusalem Studies
7See this SE question for details on various dating theories
8Josephus, Antiquities, I, 13
9TheTorah.com
10Biblical Interpretation in Judaism and Christianity


What does the Catholic Church teach about the significance of reference to Jacob's Well at John 4:12? We see the conversation of Jesus with the Samaritan woman at John 4: 10-12 :

  "Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.”

  “Sir,” the woman said, “you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water?  Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his livestock?”

There is no mention in the Old Testament regarding  inheritance of the well by Israel from Jacob, as is claimed by the Samaritan woman. But then, Jesus does not question her belief, and goes on to explain the significance of the water of eternal life. My question therefore is: What does the Catholic Church teach about the significance of reference to Jacob's well at John 4:12?

What does the Catholic Church teach about the significance of reference to Jacob's Well in John 4:12?

The Catholic Church does not place any particular significance to the reference of Jacob’s well in the Gospel of St. John. In fact we do not know for sure where the actual well existed.

  Jacob’s well is only mentioned in John’s Gospel, so biblical information about it is quite limited. However, tradition and archaeology provide more detail about the well’s original owner and its location.

  In chapter 4 of his Gospel, John recorded the story of Jesus talking with the Samaritan woman. Samaria was located in the northern half of the formerly united Israel, and Jesus was passing through it on His way from Judea to Galilee. Outside the town of Sychar, “Jacob’s well was there, and Jesus, tired as he was from the journey, sat down by the well” (John 4:6). He asked a woman to give Him something to drink from what she drew (John 4:7), and she wondered why a Jewish man would speak to a Samaritan woman—Jesus was breaking a cultural taboo because of both race and gender (John 4:9). Jesus then offered her “living water” (John 4:10). This confused her, and she responded, “Where can you get this living water? Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his flocks and herds?” (John 4:11-12). Apparently, the history of the well was common knowledge.

  The traditional site of Jacob’s well cannot be located by finding Sychar, as that city is no longer in existence. However, the site thought to be the biblical Shechem, called Tel Balata by archaeologists, is near a well. This is important because the Bible says Jacob bought land from Shechem and lived at that place for a long time (Genesis 33:19). He would have required a well, and it is perfectly reasonable that he dug one. Also, the well at Tel Balata is indeed of ancient origin. These biblical and geographical facts point to the site as a good match for what the Samaritan woman called “Jacob’s well.”

  Today, the well is inside the Church of St. Photina (the name traditionally given to the Samaritan woman by the Orthodox Church—the name is Svetlana in Russian). The church was originally built in A.D. 380. Through the years, the church was destroyed a number of times by natural and military forces. The current building is administrated by the Greek Orthodox Church, which obtained the site in 1893. The church and the well can be visited today in the West Bank.

  The significance of Jacob’s well is that it provided an opportunity for Jesus to present Himself as the life-giving Messiah to a Samaritan woman and, later, to her whole village. The woman had asked, “Are you greater than our father Jacob?” The answer is a resounding “yes.” Jacob may have provided his children with physical water in an arid land, but Jesus provides His children with “living water” in a spiritual wasteland. The life Jesus gives satisfies all our needs and springs up to eternal life (John 4:14). - What is the significance of Jacob’s well?

Mouth of Jacob’s Well

The only minor significance with the Church could perhaps be of some pius Catholic traditions or customs that exist in a few countries, such as the following:

  In Oaxaca, Oaxaca, Mexico, a celebration of the Samaritan woman takes place on the fourth Friday of Lent. The custom of the day involves churches, schools, and businesses giving away fruit drinks to passers-by. (1) - Samaritan woman at the well


What is the biblical basis for the belief held by Jehovah's Witnesses that Jehovah and Jesus Christ are separate entities? According to Jehovah's witnesses what evidences are there in the Bible that Jehovah is not Jesus Christ? What passages separate them, or declare them as different?

I think the Jehovahs Witnesses make the matter pretty clear on their website.

TL;DR - Jehovah used to appear to the ancient prophets as "God Almighty", Jesus Christ never identified as "God Almighty".

  Does God Have a Name?

  The Bible’s answer

  Humans all have personal names. Wouldn’t it be reasonable for God to
  have a name? Having and using personal names is a vital part of human
  friendships. Should it be different when it comes to our friendship
  with God?

  In the Bible, God says: “I am Jehovah. That is my name.” (Isaiah
  42:8) Although he also has many titles, such as “God Almighty,”
  “Sovereign Lord,” and “Creator,” he honors his worshippers by inviting
  them to address him by his personal name.—Genesis 17:1; Acts
  4:24; 1 Peter 4:19.

  Many translations of the Bible contain God’s personal name at Exodus
  6:3. That passage says: “I used to appear to Abraham, Isaac and
  Jacob as God Almighty, but as respects my name Jehovah I did not
  make myself known to them.”

  Jehovah is a rendering of God’s name in English that has been used for
  centuries. While many scholars prefer the spelling “Yahweh,” Jehovah
  is the form of the name that is most widely recognized. The first part
  of the Bible was written not in English but in Hebrew, a language that
  is read from right to left. In that language, the divine name appears
  as four consonants, יהוה. Those four Hebrew characters—transliterated
  YHWH—are known as the Tetragrammaton.

  Is God’s Name Jesus?

  The Bible’s answer

  Jesus referred to himself as “God’s Son” or “the Son of God.” (John
  10:36; 11:4) Jesus never identified himself as Almighty
  God.

  Moreover, Jesus prayed to God. (Matthew 26:39) And while teaching
  his followers how to pray, Jesus said: “Our Father in the heavens, let
  your name be sanctified.”—Matthew 6:9.

  Jesus revealed God’s name when he quoted an ancient passage of
  Scripture and said: “Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is one
  Jehovah.”—Mark 12:29; Deuteronomy 6:4.

  Is Jesus Almighty God?

  The Bible’s answer

  Jesus’ opposers accused him of making himself equal to God. (John
  5:18; 10:30-33) However, Jesus never claimed to be on the
  same level as Almighty God. He said: “The Father is greater than I
  am.”—John 14:28.

  Jesus’ early followers did not view him as being equal to Almighty
  God. For example, the apostle Paul wrote that after Jesus was
  resurrected, God “exalted him [Jesus] to a superior position.”
  Obviously, Paul did not believe that Jesus was Almighty God.
  Otherwise, how could God exalt Jesus to a superior position?
  —Philippians 2:9.

www.JW.org, Jehovah's Witnesses Bible Questions Answered - God, Jesus.


What is the purpose of degrees in the Knights of Columbus? The Knights of Columbus seems to have some system like the Freemasons do when it comes to degrees. But since those organizations are diametrically opposed, what is the point of the four degrees in the Knights of Columbus?

What is the purpose of degrees in the Knights of Columbus?

To teach Catholic gentlemen to be true Catholics, loyal to the Holy Father, the Magisterium of the Church and to aid fellow Catholics in diverse situations, such as widows. Things that Knights of old would look upon as an honour to fulfill.

The degrees taken emulate these facts, in their ceremonies (which the formalities are not publicly known so as to make the new recipients learn the Gospel message in a very unique manner).

The Knights in their degrees learn charity, unity, fraternity and patriotism!

  Types of Membership

  Knights

  New candidates begin their journey to Knighthood by completing the First Degree ceremony where they learn the lesson of charity. Following the First Degree ceremony, a candidate is considered a Knight of Columbus and can participate in all council activities. First Degree members are encouraged to attain the Second and Third Degrees, which teach the lessons of unity and fraternity. Upon taking the Third Degree, a member receives full honors of Knighthood and is “Knighted.”

  Privileges of Third Degree membership include the ability to serve as a local council officer, and admission to state and Supreme Council business meetings. First and Second Degree members can attend the state and Supreme Council meetings, but they are not allowed in the business sessions.

  Members who have been in the Knights for one year and have attained Third Degree membership are eligible to join the Fourth Degree Knights.

  Fourth Degree Knights

  On February 22, 1900, the first Fourth Degree exemplification or degree ceremony was held in New York City. The Fourth Degree imparts a lesson on the virtue of patriotism. The primary purpose of this degree is to foster the spirit of patriotism in members and the community at large and encourage active Catholic citizenship. Today there are some 300,000 Fourth Degree Knights out of the total 1.6 million member Knights of Columbus.

  Local units, called assemblies, draw their members from Knights of Columbus councils. The qualifications for membership in the Fourth Degree are: membership in the Knights for at least one year and being a Third Degree Knight.

  A Fourth Degree Knight may become part of the assembly’s color corps. These members are recognized widely by their distinctive attire of tuxedo, feathered hat (chapeau), cape and sword. These members regularly take part in civic events such as parades and wreath-laying ceremonies, and at ecclesial functions at Catholic churches. The various colored capes and chapeau feathers denote different officer positions within the Fourth Degree.

Wikipedia explains it as follows:

  The order is dedicated to the principles (Degrees) of charity, unity, fraternity, and patriotism. The first ritual handbook, printed in 1885, contained only the first two Degrees teaching unity and charity. The third Degree, espousing fraternity, was adopted in 1891.

  The Fourth Degree, which is dedicated to patriotism, was adopted in 1903. Members of the Fourth Degree join assemblies which are separate from ordinary councils. Assemblies may form color guards, which are often the most visible arm of the Knights, to attend important civic and church events.

A longstanding tradition is coming to an end on July 1 as the Knights of Columbus discard the ceremonial capes and plumed chapeaus of its Fourth Degree members.

  Purpose of the Colour Corps

  When knighthood was in flower, knights carried the sword to defend their God, their Church, their country and their fellow man according to the code of chivalry. Today, Sir Knights wear regalia and carry the sword to honor Christ and His apostles, especially on religious and civic occasions specified in this manual. Hence, the primary purpose of the Fourth Degree is to encourage active Catholic citizenship and foster the spirit of patriotism in members and the community at large.

  The Color Corps members exemplify all the principles of our Order:

  Charity - by the gift of their time and energies necessary to practice, perfect and perform the ceremonials and sword drill;
  Unity – by the united efforts of Sir Knights to practice and perfect a coordinated drill for the good of the Church and the Order;
  Fraternity – by expressing an “Esprit de Corps,” sharing a common desire for drill excellence and camaraderie; and
  Patriotism – by performing precision drill as a salute to God and to country and visually exhibiting a love for both.

  The public appearance of Fourth Degree Knights as a Color Corps at religious and civic functions is an important activity of each assembly.  By these public demonstrations, their loyalty and patriotism bring credit to themselves and to the Knights of Columbus. - The Colour Corps of the Patriotic Degree


According to Genesis 3:1, what could be God's necessity to create serpent(intelligence) to act aginst self According to Genesis 3:1, God created the serpent to be crafty and gave the serpent the ability to use the given intelligence.  That means there should not be the disobedient intelligence that will act against God: how is it possible that serpent(intelligence) could act against God's self?

Crafty is not necessarily bad.

  Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matthew 10:16 (KJV)

It is the use of God-given talents against God's will that makes it sin.

God also has perfect foreknowledge, so He did know exactly what would occur.


Why Christian Translator Translate Rhea as Neighbor? Why do Bible translator translate rhea into neighbor in "Love thy neighbor"?

The Jews told me that rhea really means comrades.

So why is it translated as neighbor?

In Indonesia, it's translated as "fellow humans", which is also not neighbor.

Why are there so many different translation for one so called most important commandment.

As is often the case, the Bible interprets itself.  In the parable of the Good Samaritan, someone asks Jesus who exactly his neighbor is?  Jesus replies by telling the story of a Samaritan caring for a complete stranger.

  25 And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying,
  “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 He said to him,
  “What is written in the Law? How do you read it?” 27 And he answered,
  “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all
  your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your
  neighbor as yourself.” 28 And he said to him, “You have answered
  correctly; do this, and you will live.”

  29 But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my
  neighbor?” 30 Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to
  Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and
  departed, leaving him half dead. 31 Now by chance a priest was going
  down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. 32
  So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by
  on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where
  he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion. 34 He went to him and
  bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his
  own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 And the
  next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper,
  saying, ‘Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay
  you when I come back.’ 36 Which of these three, do you think, proved
  to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” 37 He said,
  “The one who showed him mercy.” And Jesus said to him, “You go, and do
  likewise.”  Luke 10:25-37 ESV

The word neighbor is probably used by convention.  Oftentimes, new Bible translations follow conventions from older translations.

However, I know of no one who would say, "this person does not live next to me, so I don't have to love them."  Obviously, in the light of the Luke passage, that is absurd.  The passage is clearly indicating that we should love our fellow man.


Is to ignore Satan also to underestimate the potential he has to assault the Christian? I've often thought that, once indwelt by the Holy Spirit and saved by the grace of God, Satan has nothing against me.

But, is to ignore Satan also to underestimate the potential he has to assault the Christian? What do the apostles and disciples of Christ say with respect to Satan's ability against the Christian?

If we could ignore Satan knowing he has nothing against us, we wouldn't need to pay any attention to the scriptures that say

  Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about
  like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour. 1Pe 5:8

  The night is far spent, the day is at hand. Therefore let us cast off
  the works of darkness, and let us put on the armor of light. Rom 13:12

  Resist the devil and he will flee from you. Jam 4:7

  above all, taking the shield of faith with which you will be able to
  quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one. Eph 6:16

All these verses suggest that Satan's threats are as real as his potential for harm. Our fight against the enemy does not end until he is cast into darkness with Death (Rev 20:14).


What is the Order of the Resurrection of the Dead? It seems we have the resurrection in order.
However, my question is how and when are these categories of persons resurrected?

Those who died under the Old Covenant
Those who die in the New Covenant
Those who are alive at the coming of Jesus.  1Thess 4:17
The bible speaks of the Ressurection of the Souls beheaded for the gospel. Rev 20:4 -5

I desire answers that give an overview of major Christian positions regarding this question.

What is the Order of the Resurrection of the Dead?
The majority of Christians (Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans and many more) will conform that the Order of the Resurrection of the Dead is as follows:

Resurrection of the widow’s son in Zarephath (1 Kgs 17:17–22)
Resurrection of the Shunammite’s son (2 Kgs 4:18–37)
Resurrection of the man thrown into Elisha’s grave (2 Kgs 13:20)
Resurrection of Jairus’ daughter (Mark 5:41)
Resurrection of the young man at Nain (Luke 7:14)
Resurrection of Lazarus (John 11:38–44)
Resurrection of unknown saints during the crucifixion (Matt 27:52–53)
Resurrection of Christ (Matt 28:1-6)
Resurrection of Tabitha/Dorcas (Acts 9:36–42)
Resurrection of Eutychus (Acts 20:7–12)
Resurrection of the Two Witnesses (Rev 11:7–11)
Resurrection of Old Testament Saints and Martyrs (Revelation 20:4)
Final Resurrection (1 Thessalonians 4:16–18) (John 5:28-29)
Resurrection of the Wicked (Revelation 20:5)

Different Christian denominations may interpret these passages differently, but as far as the Scriptures speak this is the order of resurrections according to Sacred Scriptures.


What LDS scriptures support the doctrine that Jesus is Jehovah of the Old Testament? What passages of the LDS edition of the KJV and other authoritative writings and recorded teachings of the LDS support the teaching that Jesus is Jehovah of the Old Testament?

Jesus has many titles. We know him by "Son of Man", "Savior", "I AM", "The Word", "Christ", "Lamb of God", and so forth. "Jehovah" is the title give to the pre-moral Jesus Christ.
In the book of Isaiah, we read the words of Jehovah:

41:14 Fear not, thou worm Jacob, and ye men of Israel; I will help thee, saith the Lord, and thy redeemer, the Holy One of Israel.
44:6 Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Notice how "Redeemer" is used as He speaks or is spoken about.  Jesus Christ is our Redeemer, and Jehovah mentions he is or will be the "Redeemer"
In the Book of John 8:58-59 we read:

58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

Here the Jews recognized that Christ confessed or claimed to be "I AM" who is Jehovah of the Old Testament. This they considered blasphemy and set out to stone him.
In addition to Biblical evidence that Jesus is Jehovah, we have prophets in the Book of Mormon who declared it. Abinidi was one (Mosiah 13:33-34).

33 For behold, did not Moses prophesy unto them concerning the coming of the Messiah, and that God should redeem his people? Yea, and even all the prophets who have prophesied ever since the world began—have they not spoken more or less concerning these things?
34 Have they not said that God himself should come down among the children of men, and take upon him the form of man, and go forth in mighty power upon the face of the earth?

The God of Moses was Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament. Here we see that Moses declared that God (Jehovah) would come to earth and "go forth in mighty power."
The very last verse in the Book of Mormon talks about coming before the judgement bar of Jehovah. But right before it (verses 32-33) speaks of coming to Christ and becoming perfected in him.

34 And now I bid unto all, farewell. I soon go to rest in the paradise of God, until my spirit and body shall again reunite, and I am brought forth triumphant through the air, to meet you before the pleasing bar of the great Jehovah, the Eternal Judge of both quick and dead. Amen.

We know from Isaiah 33:22 that Christ is our judge. This is another example of how Jesus and Jehovah are the same person.
Beyond The Book of Mormon we have modern revelation found in Doctrine and Covenants 110:3-4

3 His eyes were as a flame of fire; the hair of his head was white like the pure snow; his countenance shone above the brightness of the sun; and his voice was as the sound of the rushing of great waters, even the voice of Jehovah, saying:
4 I am the first and the last; I am he who liveth, I am he who was slain; I am your advocate with the Father.

Jehovah (Jesus Christ) appeared to Joseph Smith and others in the Kirtland Temple. I am he who was slain is a good indication Jehovah is Christ who was slain for the sins of the world.
For more explanation here is a bit from the LDS Old Testament Student Manual


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

Here is another one.

  "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (1 Timothy 2:12-14).

I asked my mom once about this and she explained that when the holy spirit descended, both men and women received it. And this gives us many different gifts such us prophesying, singing and preaching.

I understood her but what I could not ask her was that, Corinthians and Timothy came after the holy spirit descended in Acts. In Africa you cannot keep on asking challenging questions to the elderly as it might be seen as disrespect. Someone help me here.

Your question can be asked using the theological terms of complementarianism and egalitarianism. The crux of the question is this - Did God make all humans the same or did He give each "separate but equal" roles to uniquely fill within the church?

This, like most real issues of substance, is not one where a single proof verse can answer it. (Although, watch me violate this in a minute!) Rather, one needs to pit the whole of Scripture and discern what the whole of God's heart on the matter is.

A whole lot of good ink has been shed on this subject, and entire books can only begin to scratch the surface of a fully biblical answer to that question.

For a deeper understanding of the 1 Corinthians 14 passage in particular, this article references Gordon Fee, one of the preeminent experts on how texts should be read. It is a solid summary (albeit 3 long pages) that really should be consulted. Finally, as to the "women should keep silent in church," verse in Corinthians, I have heard it argued that this is actually a return to the subject of Chloe and Scynthe, two women in the church at Corinth who were fighting a lot, but I cannot source this claim. This wiki article also does a good job of summarizing the role of women in the Bible, using these headings.

The implication of complementarianism would be that women were not created for this role, but rather were to be nurturers rather than leaders. Egalitarians, on the other hand, stress passages like Galatians 3:22 (In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female.)

Biblically speaking, the opening of 2 John makes it difficult for me to say that a "woman should keep silence" in church. After all, it is directly addressed to "the elect lady and her church," which indicates to me that in New Testament times, there were churches in which which women were in charge.

This said, as a guy, I'll admit, I'm not convinced this is a matter that should divide Christians. It could be one of those "tyranny of the weaker brother" questions, in which the Christian freedom afforded to women could cause others to stumble. Likewise, in churches that have accepted it, keeping women out of the pulpit could be a major stumbling block to those who see this as blantly unfair.

As Romans 14:5 says,

  Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.


What is the earliest written surviving liturgy? The Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom, for example, has been traced to the fourth century, and is purported to be based upon even earlier forms. The Liturgy of St James is even more ancient, and is supposed to be the oldest liturgy still in common use.

I have two related questions:

What is the earliest Christian liturgy that we have the actual (complete or partial) text of?
What is the earliest Christian liturgy, whether anonymous or attributed to a particular author, that is specifically referred to in ancient sources?

The first source for the history of the liturgical celebration of the Eucharist is obviously the account of the Last Supper in the New Testament. It was because Our Lord told us to do what He had done, in memory of Him, that Christian liturgies exist. Despite the  differences in the various Eucharistic liturgies they all obey His command to do "this," namely what He Himself had done. A definite pattern for the celebration of the Eucharist had developed within decades of the death of Our Lord, a pattern which was carried on well past the conclusion of the 1st century, and which can still be discerned clearly in the finalized Roman Mass of 1570.

The earliest and most detailed account of the Eucharist is found in St. Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians, which, of course, predates the Gospels, and was written in Ephesus between 52-55 A.D. Scholars agree that the Consecration formula used by St. Paul in 1 Corinthians, Chapter 11, quotes verbatim from a stylized formula already in use in the Apostolic liturgy. St. Paul's account reads:

  "For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you,
  that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which He was betrayed, took
  bread, and giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: This is
  My Body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the
  commemoration of Me. In like manner also the chalice, after He had
  supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in My Blood: this do
  ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of Me. For as
  often as you shall eat this Bread, and drink the Chalice, you shall
  show the death of the Lord, until He come.
        Therefore whosoever shall eat this Bread, or drink the Chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the Body and of the Blood
  of the Lord." [1 Cor: 11: 23-27].

Throughout the first century or so after St. Paul's description of the liturgical celebration of the Eucharist there can be found written fragmented accounts of how the early liturgical celebrations developed.    Most of these accounts are the testimonial fruits of of religious intolerance and/or persecution.

One account comes from Pliny (C. Plinius Caecilius, c. 62-113).  About the years 111-113 he writes as the young governor of Bithynia to his master, the Emperor Trajan, to ask about what he should do to Christians. He describes what he has learned about them from Christians who had apostatized under torture. Referring to his apostate informers, he recounts what the apostates revealed about Christian worship:

  “They assert that this is the whole of their fault or error, that they
  were accustomed on a certain day to meet together before daybreak and
  to sing a hymn alternately to Christ as a god, and that they bound
  themselves by an oath (sacramento) not to do any crime, but only not
  to commit theft nor robbery nor adultery, not to break their word nor
  to refuse to give up a deposit. When they had done this, it was their
  custom to depart, but to meet again to eat food - ordinary and
  harmless food however.”

The earliest account of a finalized liturgy is given to us by St. Justin Martyr (100–165). In his apologetic account of Christian life to the Roman hierarchy he describes the Christian liturgy of the Early Church in his First Apology (ca. 150) (Chapter 65):

  “But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has
  assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are
  called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty
  prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized person, and for
  all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we
  have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens
  and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an
  everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another
  with a kiss. There is then brought to the president (i.e. presiding
  Presbyter) of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water;
  and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the
  universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and
  offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to
  receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the
  prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent
  by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to
  γένοιτο (so be it). And when the president has given thanks, and all
  the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us
  deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine
  mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to
  those who are absent they carry away a portion.”

Although the liturgical celebration of the Eucharist has has somewhat changed extrinsically since the Last Supper, its basic components and movements have remained very similar to the liturgy described above in Justin Martyr’s apologetic account – especially in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church.  The current ordinary form of the Latin Mass is synonymous to his liturgy in almost every aspect.


Why did the Apologists adopt Stoic Philosophy of the λόγος? The Greek word λόγος is a prevalent concept in the first century Greco-Roman world. It has many meanings like divine principle, reason, word and revelation. All of these views regards the λόγος as impersonal but Christians went beyond this age-old tradition and reinterpret the λόγος from personification to a real person subsisting.

God has reason, mind, will and emotion( Psalm 45:1 LXX).Hence, God is a person.The nature of God is eternal ( Romans 1:20).Ergo, God is an eternal person.

John the Apostle wrote that the λόγος is God by nature and hence, teaching us that the λόγος is a person because God's nature includes personality.

John 1:1 is clear that the λόγος is with God and is also God.The immediate context reveals how is the λόγος God by nature and this is by being the μονογενὴς of the Father (John 1:14,18).

God = Person ( the Father- John 1:14)

λόγος =Person because God by nature ( the μονογενὴς in the Father's bosom - John 1:18)

But in the second century, the Logos Theology of the Greek and Latin Apologists began teaching that the λόγος is not an eternal person like what was taught in John 1:1 but rather, they adopted the Stoic terms of "logos endiathetos" ( Reason within) and "logos prophorikos" ( Reason expressed from the inside out) in order to teach that God is not an eternal Father and that the λόγος is not an eternal Son although they still teach that the Son is God and is of same nature with the Father.

Sources:

Against Praxeas Chapter 7

Dialogue with Trypho Chapter 61

Now this is my question:

Why did the second century Apologists adopt the Stoic distinction of the "logos endiathetos" and the "logos prophorikos" to teach Christ's deity?

The 2nd century Apologists took advantage of Stoic Philosophy to advance the Gospel.

The Greek word λόγος succinctly means something like word, message or reason "from the inside out."

The Apologists adopted the Stoic distinction of the λόγος for one purpose: evangelism.

The Apologists used the Stoic concept of the Logos as a means of arguing for Christianity to non-Jews. Since a Greek audience would accept this concept, their argument could concentrate on identifying this Logos with Jesus.

Logos endiathetos - The conceived Word.

One who is conceived does exists.

  "My heart produced the most excellent Logos." ~ Psalm 45:1 (Septuagint)

Logos prophorikos - The nativity or birth of the Word.

One who is born existed priorly from the womb.

  "I have given birth to you in my womb before the star of the morning." ~ Psalm 110:3 ( Septuagint)

Note

The Apologists ( like Justin Martyr, Titan and Tertullian) had a good intention (i.e. soul winning) but they'd compromised and this is where they erred.It seems that if it were not their intention to lessen the deity of Christ, they did still come to that way which as history shows paved the way to Arianism. In other words, the Apologists obscured the doctrine of the divinity of Christ by Stoicism.Nevertheless, the Apologists weren't the only Christians in their day, there was their contemporaries like Irenaeus , Athenagoras, Gregory of Thaumaturgus, Novatian and Dionysius of Rome who all taught that the λόγος was the eternal Son.


CS Lewis said time would probably continue in Heaven...But how? (See 'Letters To Malcolm') CS lewis said, because mankind is by definition finite, that we shall always be in a situation of successive time, with the present becoming past. In 'The Problem Of Pain' he says that time in Heaven may not be so much like a linear line but have thickness like a plain as well.
I'm a bit confused by that analogy as that still inplies length...does he mean we will just experience 'a lot of things' within time or, erm, well, help!
Great guy CS Lewis but  am a little confused on 'how' he thought time would behave in Heaven.

As I understand it, he is saying that our future perception may be "expanded", while still being qualitatively the same - in particular, not approaching the very different perception of time that God has. (We experience time as a succession of cause and effect; we can remember the past but can only conjecture about the future. On the other hand, God sees all times at once.)

In the letter, he talks about the thicker line as a suggestion that we could experience a "wider" present than we currently do, by being able to see and understand more  things at once. However, we are still on the line, and so we have the same inability to see the future as we do now. This matches the standard account of angelic knowledge: angels' intellect is like our own, but better, so that they can make more accurate deductions about the future, but still have to deduce rather than perceiving it directly. In the same way, angels are better than us at noticing things and in the general acuity of their senses, but they still fall short of God's ability to see things as they truly are, as opposed to their being mediated by the senses.

Part of Lewis's thought in the letter is that the future "resurrection of the body" implies that we will have bodies (and senses, and minds) that are still basically the same as now. They are perfected, but are still not divine. Scholastic philosophers argued that our perception of time in heaven might be different for several reasons -

We couldn't measure the progression of time from our physiological processes (getting hungry or tired).
With no celestial bodies to look at, we can't use them to measure hours, days, seasons, or years.
The same goes for measuring time by the decay of objects (eg, watching an apple go rotten). That doesn't happen any more.
The "speed of thought" may be different, and in any case is incommensurable with what's going on in the minds of others. You can spend an amount of time thinking about something, but did it "really" take ten minutes or ten years?

This seems to match the Lewis conception of the thicker line. There is still a succession of moments, but we may perceive things differently during those moments.


What are liturgical honours and privileges for the Patrons of categories of people? In the Motu Proprio E sancti Thomae Mori proclaiming Saint Thomas More Patron of statesmen and politicans Pope John Paul II. declares:

  Therefore, after due consideration and willingly acceding to the petitions addressed to me, I establish and declare Saint Thomas More the heavenly Patron of Statesmen and Politicians, and I decree that he be ascribed all the liturgical honours and privileges which, according to law, belong to the Patrons of categories of people.

What are these liturgical honors and privileges?

For groups and regions that can have a particular calendar it is just the liturgical memororial. Rules on this are in the Instruction of the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship Calendaria  particularia (in Latin; AAS 62 [1970], 651-663). As a group like Politicans has no own particular calendar (and most time no own litrugical celebrations), I have no idea what kind of litrugical honors a Patron can be granted.

Clarification: After Ken's Answer I want to further explain my question.

The pope uses the term "liturgical honours and privileges which, according to law, belong to the Patrons of categories of people" like it is a clearly defined set of honours and privileges that apply to all "Patrons of categories of people". I want to know, if such a set exists and which privileges it includes. So a list of liturgical honors for certain Saints does not help me, even if they are also "Patrons of categories of people".

Such privileges could be:

the use of the propium of the Saint's memorial on other days in masses of/for this group
some privileges in veneration for members of this group (e.g. if there were a ban on private possesion of Saints's image, an exception for this group)

Maybe the Red, Blue, ... Masses are such a privilege, but than I did not understand it. I have never heared before of this pracitice (Germany). If the Saint is mentioned in these masses, it may be one of the liturgical privileges I am searching for.

What are liturgical honours and privileges for patron saints?

The liturgical honours of each particular saint is that they each have a fixed day in which they may be particularly honoured at Mass or with a Mass in their honour in their feast days. Some saints have the special privilege of having a special blessing for something attached to them in the Rituale Roamanum, but not many. For example on the Feast of St. John the Evangelist there is a Blessing for Wine. This particular blessing is reserved and can only be used on St. John's Day (December 27). Not every saint has special liturgical honours!

More such examples are as follows:

A patron saint of a particular group or locality may have his or her name mentioned at Mass in the (Eucharistic Prayer III) on the feast day of that particular saint or at the occasion when one employs a Votive Mass of their patron saint. Please remember that we are dealing with honours and privileges that touch the liturgy.
Churches that are under the patronage of a particular saint have the liturgical privilege of celebrating his feast day as a solemnity, even if it falls on a Sunday.
Principle Patronal saints of countries enjoy this same privilege. (St. joseph's Day (March 19) in Canada for example).
Principle Patron Saints of a particular diocese enjoy also this same privilege within it's jurisdiction.
His name will be inscribed into the Roman Martyrology and a date will be accorded for his commemoration in the Catholic Church.

Here follows a few particular examples of some historical individual honours reserved to some saints by tradition:

St. Maurus’ Blessing of the Sick (January 15). The ancient formula may be found here on page 452.
On the Eve of St. Anthony the Great (January 16) many European countries, notably Spain and Italy large bonfires are lite in St. Anthony's honour.  Priests may use the Blessing of Fire (Benedictio Ignis from the Rituale Romamanum)
Blessing of farm animals on the feast of St. Anthony (January 17). Vatican City still honours St. Anthony with the blessing of animals  on his feast day.
There is a reserved blessing for throats on Feast of St. Blaise (February 3). The custom of blessing candles and/or throats on this saint’s feast day comes from the story of St. Blaise healing a young boy who had a fishbone stuck in his throat. The blessing of candles commemorates the actions of this young boy's mother, who used to bring St. Blaise candles while he was in prison.
There is a Blessing of a bonfire reserved for the Vigil of St. John the Baptist (June 23). Since the Vigil of St. John the Baptist was not an obligatory fast day, many places, especially in Europe, celebrated the feast of St. John the Baptist with huge bonfires, which could be lit anytime after the first vespers of the feast (on June 23). The vigil often coincides in proximity with the summer solstice and the Midsummer celebrations, thus making St. John's Eve one of the most celebrated nights in all of Europe.  Big bonfires are lit in Hungary, Croatia, Italy, France, Canada (especially in Québec), and in Spain, just to mention a few. St. John's bonfires are hugely popular in Spain. The Benedicti  Roji of the older formula can be found here on page 316.

Saint John's Fire with festivities in front of a Christian calvary shrine in Brittany, 1893

Blessing of Herbs is a prayer reserved for the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary August 15).
Blessing of Seeds is a reserved prayer for the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary (September 8).
Some dioceses have the privilege of certain blessings for particular saints of their region. The Blessing of Water, Salt and Bread in honour of St. Hubert is to be found in the Rituale Romanum (page 466) of Pope St. Pius V and is reserved to the  Archdiocese of Cologne for St. Hubert' Day (November 3).
At one time, the Dominicans had the privilege of blessing water with a relic of St. Peter the Martyr on his feast day (April 6). The blessing can be found here on page 453.
The ancient formula of blessing wine in honour of St. John the Evangelist (December27) may be viewed here (Rituale Romanum of Pope Pius V) on page 312.

As for St. Thomas More the following may be of interest. St. Thomas More has the privilege of being the patron saint of all statement, politicians, lawyers and people in public life. Not many saints are personally proclaimed patron saints by the pope in a Motu Proprio. The vast majority are not. St Thomas is thus in the category of special few. Deo Gratias.

There is nothing stopping the Catholic faithful from saying a novena in honour of St. Thomas More or Catholic lawyers and judges from asking a
priestly blessing on St. Thomas More Day (especially if a priest is in possession of a relic of St. Thomas).

St. Thomas Moore was an English lawyer, humanist, scholar, father of four children, and martyr. He was also Lord Chancellor from December 31, 1525 to November 3, 1532. He was beheaded on July 6, 1535, for refusing to take the Oath of Succession. He is jointly commemorated on June 22 with St. John Fisher. He is the patron saint of statesmen and politicians and thus of lawyer also.

Churches that are under the patronage of St. Thomas More have the liturgical privilege of celebrating his feast day as a solemnity, even if it falls on a Sunday.

The Red Mass may be celebrated on the feast of St. Thomas More who the patron saint of lawyers. The votive Red Mass has no fixed day in which it may be celebrated, although most countries place it around the commencement of their judicial year.

  The St. Thomas More Society of Los Angeles is an association of Catholic legal professionals. The society celebrates its namesake who has inspired lawyers of all faiths for generations and has selected St. Thomas More as patron of the Red Mass. - Red Mass

The Red Mass is simply a votive Mass in honour of the Holy Spirit for the intention of asking guidance from the Holy Spirit for all those involved in the justice system (judges, lawyers, advocates, doctors of law, law school professors, students and government officials). The phrase the Red Mass is two fold. Firstly, the liturgical colour of any Mass in Honour of the Holy Spirit is red and secondly the colour of the robe for judges of the High Courts (in many Countries) is also red. Doctors of the law also wore red robes.

  The Red Mass has a rich history. Beginning in England during the Middle Ages and continuing even through World War II, the entire bench and bar attended the Mass at the opening of the Court’s term.

  Liturgically, the Red Mass is celebrated as the Solemn Mass of the Holy Spirit. Its name derives from the traditional red color of the vestments worn by clergy during the Mass, representing the tongues of fire symbolizing the presence of the Holy Spirit. The Judges of the High Court, who were all doctors of the law, also wore red robes or academic hoods. With so many participants in red, the celebrations became irrevocably known as the Red Mass. The Red Mass historically marked the official opening of the judicial year of the Sacred Roman Rota, the Tribunal of the Holy See.

  In the United States, the Red Mass tradition was inaugurated on October 6, 1928, at old St. Andrew’s Church in New York City. Since then, the Red Mass has been celebrated throughout the United States each fall before the U.S. Supreme Court’s term begins. - The Red Mass

The first recorded Red Mass was held in Paris in 1245. In modern times each country has its own date in which to host the Red Mass if they choose to do so. Nevertheless each diocese or parish may hold its own Red Mass Day on any particular date that is liturgically free to do so. This is especially true if the parish church dedicated to St. Thomas More, patron saint of lawyers.

One of the better-known Red Masses in the USA is celebrated at the Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle in Washington D.C. Since the Supreme Court convenes on the first Monday of October, the Red Mass is celebrated on the Sunday before the first Monday of October. It is normally presided over by a cardinal.

In Ireland, the Red Mass is celebrated on the first Monday of October, which is the opening day of the Michaelmas Law Term.

  In Canada, the Red Mass was first celebrated in Québec City in 1896, in Toronto in 1924 and in Montréal in 1944. Its sponsorship was assumed by the Guild of Our Lady of Good Counsel in 1931 and by The Thomas More Lawyers' Guild of Toronto since 1968. It was re-instituted in Sydney, Australia in 1931. - Red Mass (Wikipedia)

More sources can be viewed as following:

St. Thomas More Society Red Mass

Welcome to the St. Thomas More Society of Los Angeles

History of red mass

Holy Spirit, guide us in all our ways.

St. Thomas More, pray for us.

A Man for All Seasons is great classic movie (1966) entertainment for the entire family today!


Verse on evangelizing those in the Church first? What New Testament verse (I think it was St. Paul) says that we must first evangelize those who are already in the Church first before making converts of others outside the Church?

You may be thinking of Paul in his letter to the Romans:

Rom 1:16:

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

Rom 2:9-10:

9 There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.

Paul, who considered himself (confirmed by the other apostles) to be Apostle to the Gentiles, might have received the evangelizing priority of the Jews from Jesus himself.  This is in line with some gospel passages set before Pentecost, where Jesus and his disciples deliberately focused the announcement of the Kingdom only to the Jews, while making it clear that eventually the Gentiles will be included, as it's obvious from passages in Isaiah.
Relevant passages in Matthew about the priority of the Jews:

Instruction to disciples in Matt 10:5-6:

5 These twelve Jesus sent out, instructing them, “Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritans, 6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

What Jesus said to the Canaanite woman from the district of Tyre and Sidon in Matt 15:24:

[Jesus] answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

Matthew is written after Pentecost, several passages about evangelizing the Gentiles:
Matt 10:16-18:

16 “Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. 17 Beware of men, for they will deliver you over to courts and flog you in their synagogues, 18 and you will be dragged before governors and kings for my sake, to bear witness before them and the Gentiles.

Matt 12:15-21:

15 Jesus, aware of this, withdrew from there. And many followed him, and he healed them all 16 and ordered them not to make him known. 17 This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah:
18 “Behold, my servant whom I have chosen,
    my beloved with whom my soul is well pleased.
  I will put my Spirit upon him,
    and he will proclaim justice to the Gentiles.
19 He will not quarrel or cry aloud,
    nor will anyone hear his voice in the streets;
20 a bruised reed he will not break,
    and a smoldering wick he will not quench,
   until he brings justice to victory;
21  and in his name the Gentiles will hope.”

John Piper wrote a thorough study on Rom 1:16, listing 6 ways on how the Jews have priority over the Gentiles, 3 ways on how the Jews don't have priority, as well as why Paul mentioned the topic in his letter.  From his website article To the Jew First, and Also to the Greek, the 6 ways that Jews have priority are:

They are the historic chosen people of God.

They are the guardians of God’s special revelation, the Old Testament Scriptures.

The Messiah and Savior, Jesus, comes to the world as a Jew to Jews.

Salvation is from the Jews, since everyone who is saved is saved by being connected to the covenant with Abraham by faith.

The Jews are to be evangelized first when the gospel penetrates a new region.

The Jews will enter first into final judgment and final blessing.

For more explanation on Jesus's ministry to the House of Israel first, see the gotquestions.org website article Why did Jesus say that He was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel (Matthew 15:24)?


Are there any conditions at all that allow a married Catholic couple to use contraceptives? Don't laugh at me, but I heard that some conditions are as follows:

Soldier coming back from years of serving has only one night to spend with spouse
Couple has at least a certain number of children and cannot afford anymore.
Couple would not be able to conceive even if they did not use contraceptives for example, woman's time of month, infertility or such situations. not that there's any good reason to do it other than hypothetical inquiry

Really Catholic. I heard those from people who are either Catholic or know people who are.

No, there are not—at least not for contraceptive purposes.
The Catholic Church has this to say about (artificial) contraception:

Similarly excluded [from consideration as a moral act] is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means.
Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.

(Humanae Vitae, Encyclical letter of Blessed Pope Paul VI, July 25, 1968, section 14; emphasis added)
Pope Paul reasons thus to this conclusion:

This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.
The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life—and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities, the unitive and the procreative, is preserved, the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true mutual love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is called. We believe that our contemporaries are particularly capable of seeing that this teaching is in harmony with human reason.

(Humanae Vitae, section 12)
Pope St. John Paul II, in his apostolic exhortation Familiaris Consortio of 1981, said something similar:

When couples, by means of recourse to contraception, separate these two meanings that God the Creator has inscribed in the being of man and woman and in the dynamism of their sexual communion, they act as "arbiters" of the divine plan and they "manipulate" and degrade human sexuality—and with it themselves and their married partner—by altering its value of "total" self-giving. Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality.
When, instead, by means of recourse to periods of infertility, the couple respect the inseparable connection between the unitive and procreative meanings of human sexuality, they are acting as "ministers" of God's plan and they "benefit from" their sexuality according to the original dynamism of "total" selfgiving, without manipulation or alteration.

(Familiaris Consortio, section 32)
That is, because contraception involves one or the other of the couple changing the way the physiology of sex works, the Church sees it as the couple manipulating their sexuality and in a sense withholding something about themselves from the other. This is a fundamental dishonesty which has no place in the vocation of marriage; in addition, it is an act of pride, in that it represents the couple deciding that they, not God, will control whether life will come of their love.
As hinted above, the Church recognizes that there may be times when a couple wishes to ensure that sex will not result in having a child. In such cases, there are morally acceptable approaches (including what are often called fertility awareness methods) which allow one, without interfering with the body's normal functioning, to discover the times when the woman is most and least likely to conceive, and to refrain from sexual activity during the "most likely" times.
But there are no times when artificial contraception methods are morally acceptable.
It is, of course, the case that hormonal methods of contraception have other physical effects on the woman's body, and these are taken advantage of when the medications are prescribed to deal with other gynecological conditions. To take a medication for the purpose of curing a disease is never immoral, and Pope Paul VI addressed this possibility in Humanae Vitae:

On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result therefrom—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever.

However, especially in light of the potential health complications, one might consider asking the gynecologist to prescribe such medications only as a last resort.
It's too bad that so many Catholics appear to not know, or perhaps to not care, what the actual teaching of the Church is on this subject.


Ascension Mass when traveling between dioceses? If you live in a diocese that celebrates the Ascension on Thursday, but you're out of town and temporarily in a diocese that celebrates the Ascension on the following Sunday, what are you supposed to do? I know that for short trips you're supposed to follow your home diocese's rules, but in this case the diocese you're in won't have the Mass you're supposed to attend.

Ascension Mass when traveling between dioceses?
Generally speaking, the obligation is to observe the rules of the diocese you are physically and currently in at that moment. That is why, Catholics must be kept up to date of such things when traveling.

In the United States, Christmas Day (December 25) and the Immaculate Conception (December 8) are always days of obligation. Christmas and Easter (which always falls on Sunday) are the highest-ranking holy days, and the Immaculate Conception is the feast for the United States. However, if any of the other holy days falls on a Saturday or Monday, they aren’t considered holy days of obligation, because they’re back-to-back with Sunday. The concern is that it would be burdensome to many Catholics to have to go to church two days in a row.
To make things even more confusing, some parts of the United States have moved holy days, such as the Ascension from Thursday to the closest Sunday. If in doubt, it’s best to call the local Catholic parish or just go to Mass anyway. Attending Mass is never a waste of time, even if it ends up not being a holy day of obligation.
Europe has four more holy days than the United States observes: January 6 (Epiphany), March 19 (St. Joseph), Corpus Christi (Thursday after Trinity Sunday, which is the Sunday after Pentecost, which is 50 days after Easter), and the Solemnity of St. Peter and St. Paul (June 29). - Holy Days of Obligation in the Catholic Church

If a particular church within a certain diocese does celebrate the Feast of the Ascension on the Thursday (usually some religious communities) and the diocese transfers the feast to the following Sunday. Now let us say that some of the faithful go to mass on the following Sunday after Ascension Thursday and the they go to such a religious community’s Sunday mass which is not the Feast of the Ascension, their day of obligation has been fulfilled, even though they actually missed the liturgical feast of the Ascension. This actually happens every year in my archdiocese.
Canon Law makes this quite clear:

Can. 12 §1. Universal laws bind everywhere all those for whom they were issued.
§2. All who are actually present in a certain territory, however, are exempted from universal laws which are not in force in that territory.
§3. Laws established for a particular territory bind those for whom they were issued as well as those who have a domicile or quasi-domicile there and who at the same time are actually residing there, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 13.
Can. 13 §1. Particular laws are not presumed to be personal but territorial unless it is otherwise evident.
§2. Travellers are not bound:
1/ by the particular laws of their own territory as long as they are absent from it unless either the transgression of those laws causes harm in their own territory or the laws are personal;
2/ by the laws of the territory in which they are present, with the exception of those laws which provide for public order, which determine the formalities of acts, or which regard immovable goods located in the territory.
§3. Transients are bound by both universal and particular laws which are in force in the place where they are present.


When did female missionaries appear after the Reformation? Assuming that prior to the Reformation, Jesuit priests did not bring missionary wives or families along, as they were not married, when did women become a normal sighting among missionary work around the world?

Note: I am principally thinking in terms of husband and wife teams leaving their home country to teach the bible abroad. The wife often doing sunday school or women bible studies or just sharing faith with work colleagues. The husband doing much the same as a missionary supported by the local church, possibly also acting as pastor of a newly built church. When was this a normal sighting around the globe.

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the
  name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching
  them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you
  always, to the very end of the age.” (Matt. 28:19-20)

The normal, "extroverted" role of women in missionary work has existed on a grand scale ever since the Apostolic age. Various religious congregations and orders of both men and women have been established throughout the centuries with the specific purpose of obeying Jesus’ Great Commission. Some of these female congregations, such as those founded by SS. Augustine and Benedict (Augustinians/Benedictines) date back to the 4th and 5th centuries.

Never the less, in order to address the question specifically, I'll briefly focus on the participation and pro-activity of women missionaries on a world-wide scale during and after the Reformation period.

During the Age of Discovery, immediately following the advent of the Reformation, Catholic missionaries – both men and women – set out to evangelize the newly discovered Americas. The Ursuline Sisters were the first Catholic nuns to land in the new world. In 1639, Mother Marie of the Incarnation, two other Ursuline nuns, and a Jesuit priest left France for a mission to Canada. When they arrived in the summer of 1639, they studied the language of the native peoples and then began to educate the native children.(1)  They taught reading and writing as well as needlework, embroidery, drawing and other domestic arts.(2) The Ursuline Convent established by Marie has been in continuous use by the Ursuline Sisters since its construction.

By the end of 1640, there were many Ursulines in Canada who taught the catechism to indigenous children. There is also an Ursuline convent in Quebec City that is the oldest educational institution for women in North America.(3) Their work helped to preserve a religious spirit among the French population and to Christianize native peoples and Métis.

In 1727, 12 Ursulines from France landed in what is now New Orleans. These Ursulines were the first Roman Catholic nuns in what is now the United States. They instituted a convent and school, both of which continue today.(4) Ursuline Academy (New Orleans) is the oldest continually operating Catholic school in the United States and the oldest girl’s school in the United States.

The Ursuline tradition holds many U. S.  firsts in its dedication to the growth of individuals, including the first female pharmacist, first woman to contribute a book of literary merit, first convent, first free school and first retreat center for ladies, and the first free education for female slaves (which continued until abolition). The Ursulines also established the first social welfare center in the Mississippi Valley.

Other notable religious orders that were/are specifically commissioned by Rome to do missionary work during the post-Reformation period:

The Sisters of Mercy was founded by Catherine McAuley in Dublin, Ireland in 1831, and her nuns went on to establish hospitals and schools across the world.(5)

The Little Sisters of the Poor was founded in the mid-19th century by Saint Jeanne Jugan near Rennes, France, to care for the many impoverished elderly who lined the streets of French towns and cities.(6)

In Britain's Australian colonies, Australia's first canonized Saint, Mary MacKillop, co-founded the Sisters of St. Joseph of the Sacred Heart as educative religious institute for the poor in 1866, and by the time of her death her religious institute had established 117 schools and had opened orphanages and refuges for the needy.

The list goes on and on, including contemporaries such as the Missionaries of Charity founded by Mother Teresa of Calcutta.

For much of the early twentieth century, Catholic women continued to join religious institutes in large numbers, where their influence and control was particularly strong in the running of primary education for children, high schooling for girls, and in nursing, hospitals, orphanages and aged care facilities.

Within Protestantism, the participation of women in post-Reformation missionary work sharply contrasts that of Catholicism, in that it was practically non-existent up until the turn of the 20th century. This was mainly because the majority of Protestant churches upheld the traditional position which restricted ruling and preaching roles within the Church exclusively to men until the 20th century.

The Protestant Reformation, by shutting down female convents within the movement, effectively closed off the option of a full-time religious role for Protestant women.(7) Martin Luther himself taught that "the wife should stay at home and look after the affairs of the household as one who has been deprived of the ability of administering those affairs that are outside and concern the state…."(8) John Calvin agreed that "the woman's place is in the home."(9)

In his A Very Short History of the World, the historian Geoffrey Blainey wrote that, in removing the institution of the convent, the Reformation at first indirectly reduced the power of women, for convents had been places where women could achieve power and influence, as in Zurich where the Benedictine abbesses had helped administer the town.

John Knox (1510–1572) also denied women the right to publicly evangelize, as he asserted in his famous First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women.

Baptist theologian Dr. John Gill (1690–1771) comments on 1 Corinthians 14:34,35, stating:

  In Gen 3:16, "thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule
  over thee". By this the apostle would signify, that the reason why
  women are not to speak in the church, or to preach and teach publicly,
  or be concerned in the ministerial function, is, because this is an
  act of power, and authority; of rule and government, and so contrary
  to that subjection which God in his law requires of women unto men.
  The extraordinary instances of Deborah, Huldah, and Anna, must not be
  drawn into a rule or example in such cases.(10)

Methodist founder John Wesley (1703–1791) and Methodist theologian Adam Clarke (1762–1832) both upheld male headship, but allowed that spiritual Christian women could publicly speak in church meetings if they "are under an extraordinary impulse of the Spirit"(11)

Puritan theologian Matthew Poole (1624–1679) concurred with Wesley, adding:

  But setting aside that extraordinary case of a special afflatus,
  [strong Divine influence] it was, doubtless, unlawful for a woman to
  speak in the church.

It wasn't until the founding of the Women’s Missionary Union in 1888 that Protestant women began to effectively facilitate missionary work abroad.

According to historian Patricia Hill, the interdenominational women's foreign mission movement was the largest of the great women's movements of the nineteenth century, eclipsing the more famous temperance movement and women's rights movement.

  Local [women's mission] auxiliaries, like temperance groups and
  women's clubs, offered conservative women a forum for developing
  skills in public speaking, fund- raising and organizational management
  that could be easily transferred from these semiprivate spheres to the
  public arena. And when the women of small-town America embarked upon
  the systematic study of foreign mission fields, their cultural
  horizons were considerably broadened. Women who served overseas as
  missionaries or who headed denominational societies at the national
  level carved out careers for themselves in mission service. Thus,
  paradoxically, this eminently respectable, religiously conservative
  movement fostered a wider sphere of responsibility for ordinary
  churchwomen and opened up new professional opportunities for several
  thousand American women.

  Foreign missions gripped the imaginations and enlisted the support of
  hundreds of thousands of middle-class churchwomen in the late
  nineteenth century. By 1915 there were more than three million women
  on the membership rolls of some forty denominational female missionary
  societies. The interdenominational women's foreign mission movement .
  . . was substantially larger than any of the other mass woman's
  movements of the nineteenth century.(13)

Women have played an indispensable role throughout salvation history. From the Virgin Birth of Christ, down to the present day, women have played a tremendously integral part in the  mission of Christ’s Church. Missionary work is alive and well in today's Church, as both men and women are working together to preach the Gospel to all nations.

http://www.teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/23848
http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio.php?id_nbr=325
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/The_Ursulines
http://www.pbase.com/septembermorn/ursuline_academy_and_convent_after_hurricane_katrina
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/Sisters_of_Mercy
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12248a.htm
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=3241
Luther’s  Lectures on Genesis 3:11
http://www.covenanter.org/JCalvin/titussermons/srmtts11.htm
http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/1-corinthians-14-34.html
John Wesley's notes on the Bible, 1 Cor. 14:34,35
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~ma02/harris/sbc/wmu.html


What is the definition of sons of God in Job 2:1? Job 2

  Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord

Multiple sons of God are mentioned in Job 2:1. What definition would entail the title 'Sons of God'.

Is it:

God in essence.
A special servant of God.
Biological son (as in begotten).
Other than the above

What evidence would denote a definition for 'sons of God' in Job 2:1?

Luke 6:35

  Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High

Children of The Most High, sons of God... a status to be achieved?

A second question would be (for another day): Is the hebrew 'son of god' equivalent to the Greek 'son of god' like in Mathew 4:3

  And the tempter came and said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread."

What is the definition of son of God in Job 2:1?

For the Chosen People, it usually refers to the Hebrew nation or people in general.

  Although references to "sons of God", "son of God" and "son of the LORD" are occasionally found in Jewish literature, they never refer to physical descent from God. There are two instances where Jewish kings are figuratively referred to as a god. The king is likened to the supreme king God. These terms are often used in the general sense in which the Jewish people were referred to as "children of the LORD your God".

  When used by the rabbis, the term referred to Israel or to human beings in general, and not as a reference to the Jewish mashiach. In Judaism the term mashiach has a broader meaning and usage and can refer to a wide range of people and objects, not necessarily related to the Jewish eschaton. - Son of God

This may also help:

  Sons of the God (Hebrew: בני האלהים) literally: "sons of the Gods") is a phrase used in the Hebrew Bible and apocrypha. The phrase is also used in Kabbalah where bene elohim are part of different Jewish angelic hierarchies.

  Hebrew Bible

  Genesis 6

  And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. — Genesis 6:1–4, KJV

  The first mention of "sons of God" in the Hebrew Bible occurs at Genesis 6:1–4. In terms of literary-historical origin, this phrase is typically associated with the Jahwist tradition.3

  This passage has had two interpretations in Judaism:

  Offspring of Seth: The first references to the offspring of Seth rebelling from God and mingling with the daughters of Cain are found in Christian and rabbinic literature from the second century CE onwards e.g. Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, Augustine of Hippo, Julius Africanus, and the Letters attributed to St. Clement. It is also the view expressed in the modern canonical Amharic Ethiopian Orthodox Bible. In Judaism "Sons of God" usually refers to the righteous, i.e. the children of Seth.
  Angels: All of the earliest sources interpret the "sons of God" as angels. From the third century BCE onwards, are  references are found in the Enochic literature, the Dead Sea Scrolls the (Genesis Apocryphon, the Damascus Document, 4Q180), Jubilees, the Testament of Reuben, 2 Baruch, Josephus, and the book of Jude (compare with 2 Peter 2). This is also the meaning of the only two identical occurrences of bene ha elohim in the Hebrew Bible (Job 1:6 and 2:1), and of the most closely related expressions (refer to the list above). In the Septuagint, the interpretive reading "angels" is found in Codex Alexandrinus, one of four main witnesses to the Greek text.

  Rabbinic Judaism traditionally adheres to the first interpretation, with some exceptions, and modern Jewish translations may translate bnei elohim as "sons of rulers" rather than "sons of God". Regardless, the second interpretation (sons of angels or other divine beings) is nonexistent in modern Judaism. This is reflected by the rejection of Enoch and other Apocrypha supporting the second interpretation from the Hebrew Bible Canon.

Using Scripture to interpret Scripture is a very common practice in our day and as such the New Testament in the person of St. Luke shows us that the Sons of God were the descendants of Adam.

According to Scripture “sons of God” means “persons who are begotten independently of any creature’s decision”. All angels can appropriately be called “sons of God”, but not all characters called “sons of God” in the Bible can appropriately be considered angels. The “sons of God” in Genesis 6:1-4 are undoubtedly human, and it is fitting to consider that they were created directly by God through transformation of human-like animals into persons.

  Who was the son of Enos, who was the son of Seth, who was the son of Adam, who was the son of God. - Luke 3:38


LDS belief about salvation in other worlds From this answer to another question, the below was stated.

  Mormons might believe that God had other children on other worlds, but I leave that to the Mormons to exactly clarify that doctrine. In any event, they still hold a high regard for the position of Jesus in this world.

So I am curious. Do Mormons believe that there are other worlds with humans on them? If so, the more important part of this question, do they have their own Christ?

This is not taught often as it can lead to confusion and questions that do not concern us or our salvation. But a careful reading of the scriptures and some LDS church leaders would convey that Mormons do believe that God has made and populated other worlds and that Christ is the Savior to all of God's children and truly is The Only Begotten.
Doctrine and Covenants section 76:

22 And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives!
23 For we saw him, even on the bright hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father—
24 That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God.

Further, in the Book of Moses, chapter 1:

31 And behold, the glory of the Lord was upon Moses, so that Moses
stood in the presence of God, and talked with him face to face. And
the Lord God said unto Moses: For mine own purpose have I made these
things. Here is wisdom and it remaineth in me.
32 And by the word of my power, have I created them, which is mine
Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth.
33 And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them
for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine
Only Begotten.
34 And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many.
35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof,
give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed
away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and
innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me,
for they are mine and I know them.

This is in harmony with the Biblical teachings in Hebrews, for instance:
Hebrews 1

1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past
unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath
appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Hebrews 11

3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word
of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do
appear.


Why does Vatican require "Yahweh" not to be used? This news article by Catholic News Service tells of the removal of the Tetragrammaton from Catholic masses.

  "Yahweh" -- a name of God that the Vatican has ruled must not "be used or pronounced" in songs and prayers during Catholic Masses.

This might be related to the Jewish practice of not pronouncing the Tetragrammaton (God's name, possibly pronounced like Yahweh or Yehovah). Which I think is based on an overtly careful application of the commandment not to pronounce God's name in vain.

What is the reasoning for this directive? Is it just to follow the Jewish example?

What does this mean for the New Jerusalem Bible, a widely used Catholic translation that consistently translates the Tetragrammaton as "Yahweh"?

The "removal" of it is actually a reminder of Roman Catholic tradition. That is, uttering the tetragrammaton has always been prohibited, mostly for the same reasons it's prohibited in Jewish traditions. The usage of it has crept into recent usage unintentionally in attempts to be more modern with translations.

To combat this (and other translation issues), the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments issued the Liturgiam Authenticam in 2001, which provided guidance on how to translate the Bible based on Church teaching, and provided instructions specifically about the tetragrammaton:

  [I]n accordance with immemorial tradition, which indeed is already evident in the above-mentioned “Septuagint” version, the name of almighty God expressed by the Hebrew tetragrammaton (YHWH) and rendered in Latin by the word Dominus, is to be rendered into any given vernacular by a word equivalent in meaning.

In 2008, a letter was sent to all the Bishops' conferences (PDF) intended to remind them of this instruction. This letter again provided reasons why the tetragrammaton ought not be uttered and reiterated:

  Avoiding pronouncing the tetragrammaton of the name of God on the part of the Church has therefore its own grounds. Apart from a motive of a purely philological order, there is also that of remaining faithful to the Church's tradition, from the beginning, that the sacred tetragrammaton was never pronounced in the Christian context nor translated into any of the languages into which the Bible was translated.

The letter then specified three directives which serve to remind the conferences about the prohibition on the use of the tetragrammaton in prayers, songs, and Biblical translations.

The Jerusalem Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible were published in 1966 and 1985, respectively: as mentioned above, Wikipedia suggests the use of Yahweh in them was an attempt to modernize the translations. They are mostly unique in this respect: other translations like the New American Bible and the Douey-Rheims Bible translate it to "God" or "Lord" in accordance with Church teaching.

Given the 2001 and 2008 instructions provided by the Holy See, any future editions based on the Jerusalem Bible should and likely would avoid the use of the tetragrammaton in favor of "Lord".


Was Phoebe a deacon? Was Phoebe a deacon?

The NIV/NLT translators seem to think deacon:

  Romans 16:1 (NIV) I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae.

Furthermore, when I read the qualifications for a deacon in 1 Timothy 3, I see that a deacon should clearly be a man:

  1 Timothy 3:8–12 (ESV) Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well.

Most other translations call Phoebe a "servant" instead of "deacon", however the greek word for deacon in both passages is διάκονος. I'm not sure what to make of this.

There is a very detailed examination of this issue by Margaret Mowczko from an egalitarian perspective (answering in the affirmative) posted here:

Was Phoebe a Deacon of the Church in Cenchrea? (Part 1)

and here:

Was Phoebe a Deacon of the Church in Cenchrea? (Part 2)

While the usage of the word διάκονος in scripture is discussed at some length, the strongest arguments in favor are the extra-biblical witnesses that there were women known as deaconesses/ministers in the early Church of which Phoebe was a noteable example:

  Pliny the younger, who was governor of Pontus and Bithynia in 111-113, wrote to Trajan saying that he had tortured two female slaves “who were being called ministers” (quae ministrae dicebantur). (Letters 10.96.8)  Elizabeth McCabe (2009) notes that the Latin word ministra is synonymous with the Latin word diāconus, and that a diāconus can be defined as a minister of the church, that is, a deacon.  Pliny believed that the two tortured women were official ministers, or deacons, of the church.

  Origen lived in the years 185-253, a time when ordained female deacons were active in the church. (Campbell 2009:61)  In around 246 Origen wrote his commentary on Romans (the oldest commentary on Romans that still survives) and it is apparent that he believed Phoebe to have been an official female deacon.  In reference to Romans 16:1-2 he declared that “This passage teaches by apostolic authority that women also were appointed (constitiu) in the ministry of the church (in ministerio ecclesiae), in which office Phoebe was placed at the church at Cenchrea . . . And therefore this passage teaches two things equally and is to be interpreted . . . to mean that women are to be considered ministers (haberi . . . feminas minstras) in the church.

  As well as literary evidence, there is epigraphic evidence which indicates that Phoebe was famous and regarded as an ordained deacon by the Early Church.  A funerary stele from the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem, and dated to the latter half of the 4th century, or possibly later, reads:  “Here lies the slave and bride of Christ, Sophia the deacon (hē diakonos), the second Phoebe (hē deutera Phoibē), who fell asleep in peace . . .” (Horsely)[11]   To be referred to as “the second Phoebe” was clearly meant as an honour for the deacon Sophia being commemorated on the stele.

A somewhat lengthy but highly pertinent quote addressing 1 Timothy 3*:

  Diakonoi are mentioned in First Timothy, one of the later New Testament letters.[8]  The diakonoi of 1 Timothy 3:8ff were probably official deacons.   What is less clear is who the women mentioned in 1 Timothy 3:11 were.  Whether these women are female deacons or the wives of deacons is debated, but, considering that up until the fourth century there was no separate word for female deacons, it could be that the female deacons were simply called “women” here to distinguish them from the male deacons.

  There are indications in the text which suggest that these women were female deacons and not deacon’s wives.  For instance, there is no mention of the wives of overseers (or bishops); and it doesn’t make sense that the writer of 1 Timothy would regard the moral requirements of deacons’ wives to be worthy of mention, but not those of overseers’ wives.  Also, if deacons’ wives were intended, we would expect a definite article or a genitive pronoun in the Greek of 1 Timothy 3: 11 (which could be translated as “the wives” or “their wives” respectively.)  However, it is the use of the word “likewise” (hōsautōs) which indicates that a distinct but similar group is being addressed in verse 11.  (Giles 1989:61)

  “Likewise” (hōsautōs) is found at the beginning of 1 Timothy 3:8 and 1 Timothy 3:11.  Massey (1989:61) writes that “likewise” is “customarily used to introduce the second and third entities in a series.”  He suggests that the use of hōsautōs “seems to place the three groups [overseers, male deacons, and women] in categories of a similar nature.”  That is, the people belonging to these three groups are involved in somewhat similar ministries and require similar moral qualifications.[10]  Taking the word “likewise” into account we can see that verses 8-10 refer to the male deacons, verse 11 specifically refers to the female deacons, and verses 12-13 probably refer to both the male and female deacons.[11]

  John Chrysostom weighed in on the debate about whether the women in 1 Timothy 3:11 were deacons or not.  In his Homily 11 on 1 Timothy he wrote: “Some have thought that this is said of women generally, but it is not so, for why should he introduce anything about women to interfere with his subject?  He is speaking of those who hold the rank of deaconesses.”  In response to 1 Timothy 3:12 (including the idiomatic phrase “a one woman man”)[12] he added “This must be understood therefore to relate to Deaconesses.  For that order is necessary and useful and honourable in the Church . . .”

*This is a passage where a masculinist bias in a majority of English translations is particularly evident - I personally find it fascinating and illuminating to read a translation that preserves the gender neutrality of the original Greek.