How is original sin transmitted? Assuming the doctrine of original sin is true, how exactly is original sin passed down to the rest of mankind? Was the nature of man changed? If so, what exempted Christ from sin but allowed him to remain 100% man?

Is there a genetic inheritance of some strand of sin DNA?

What does the Bible say about this? What does Church history have to say?

I think that the best answer here is that the Scriptures are not entirely clear on how original sin is transmitted.  One thing that we do know (or believe the scriptures to teach) is:

The sin nature is passed on to us from our fathers and not our mothers

Sin entered the world through Adam - Romans 5:12 - not Eve who sinned first.
More directly taught in Heb 7:9-10
Christ Who did not have an earthly father did not have original sin passed to Him.

That is about all that we know (and even this view is heavily disputed.)

Other good questions:
Is it genetic (I doubt it) or spiritual (much more likely)?  What would happen if we used two women's DNA to clone a new person, if the new creation had a soul would it be sinless?


How many Pentecostals and Charismatics are there in the U.S. today? I am currently conducting research which seeks to establish that Charismatic Christianity, which started with Charles Parham in the early 20th century, has had the greatest influence on the church in America up into today.

One possible piece of evidence for my case rests on the total population of Charismatic Christians in America. This number is difficult to discern though for a number of couple of reasons:

  Firstly, although there are denominations which represent Charismatic
  beliefs such as Assemblies of God, United Pentecostal Church
  International etc., these populations are not comprehensive in
  examining the totality of Charismatic influence; many
  non-denominational churches hold beliefs similar to Pentecostals for
  example.

  Secondly, virtually all Protestant denominations & Catholicism have
  some influence of Charismatic Christianity in them
  today.
  The measure of this influence is difficult to quantify when
  determining how many Charismatic Christians are in actually in the
  population of Christians in America.

Given these difficulties listed, I am curious if any scholarly research group has conducted research to best piece together an estimate which best identifies the population of those which subscribe to the theology first promulgated by Charles Parham in the early 1900's.

Todd Johnson, who is the director of the Center for the Study of Global Christianity at Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary, reported on the global demographics of the Pentecostal and Charismatic renewal.

He does this by first breaking down our demographic of interest into a single group called “renewalists” which are comprised of three “waves”: Pentecostals, Charismatics, and neocharismatics. Despite the three waves, Johnson argues that they all point to an interconnected movement:

  “The case for the Pentecostal and Charismatic Renewal as a single
  interconnected movement can best be made by considering how the
  movement starts and spreads in any area, from the days of the earliest
  Pentecostals to those of current Charismatics and neocharismatics. The
  start of the movement anywhere has always been an unexpected or
  unpredictable happening rather than the result of any human planning
  or organization. First individuals (at random across the existing
  churches), then groups, then large numbers in semi-organized movements
  become filled with the Spirit and embark on the common Charismatic
  experience. All of them, originally, can collectively be termed
  Renewalists.”

Number of Renewalists in the United States

For these “renewalists,” as Johnson calls them, we find that they have quite a substantial representation in American Christianity. According to a reference Johnson makes to the World Christian Database, as of 2010, there are roughly 76,000,000 renewalists in the U.S.1

That is to say approximately 1/3rd of all Christians in the U.S identify with renewalist ideology. This renewalist group makes up in fact the largest demographic of Christian in the U.S. today, with Catholics trailing in second at about 70,000,000 followers, or about 30% of the Christian population.

Johnson, T.M. Soc (2009) 46: 479. The Global Demographics of the Pentecostal and Charismatic Renewal


How do YECs interpret waters above the expanse in Genesis 1? According to Protestant Young Earth Creationists what are the waters above the expanse in Genesis 1?

Day four says the expanse contains the stars sun and moon so I do not think it can be the atmosphere as many try to claim. Anyone ever study this topic?

In 1968, at the age of seventeen, I read Morris and Whitcombe's 'The Genesis Flood' and found the explanation of a 'water canopy' very satisfactory and discovered that many others, at that time and previously, had also found it logical. During my twenties I learned Advanced Analytical Chemistry and in my thirties I became a Licentiate of the Royal Society of Chemistry and in my forties I worked with radioactive isotopes and with DNA components, training further in Molecular Biochemistry.

The earth is protected by the gas giants, Jupiter and Saturn, whose combined gravitational field, together with the gravity of the moon, keep us - largely - protected from asteroids and comets, except in rare cases (Tunguska, 1908, and Chelyabinsk, 2013) when significant events (I would call them judgments) bring material to our planet at high speed causing kiloton or even megaton explosions in the atmosphere and causing damage on earth. The asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter is where the collected items orbit after gravitational capture.

The Kuiper belt and the inferred Oort cloud are also protective 'layers' at further distances from Earth.

But what is missing is protection from cosmic radiation, the high energy radiation which affects airline cabin crew (whose lifetime radiation dose is about two or three times more than the general population) and affects every dweller on earth.

  And God ... divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. And God called the firmament 'Heaven'. Genesis 1:7,8 KJV.

Spiritually, this has profound meaning regarding creation, as such. It is a profound expression regarding 'waters' which elsewhere are called 'seas', the imagery conveying spiritual truth. The words also have bearing on what happened on earth, subsequently, by the judgement of Almighty God.

  ... by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: II Peter 3:5

My own understanding is that water descended from above in the days of Noah which, as water vapour above the planet, had protected earth from cosmic radiation. The loss of this 'water canopy' explains the subsequent rapid decline in human longevity, as detailed in Genesis 11, from almost a thousand years to barely two hundred.

The antediluvian climate would have been mild, temperate and humid, all conducive to human good health and longevity, the loss of which was, also, deleterious.

Cosmic radiation is gamma radiation and x-rays from such sources as neutron stars and is highly damaging, genetically and physically.

But there is another judgment, apart from the water loss and the significant alteration in climate - a judgment that is unseen.

  God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell (tartarus, the abyss) and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment ... II Peter 2:4 KJV

Principalities in the heavens, who had rebelled, were not spared and were deposed. But their very existence is that which holds the creation together. And their subsequent deposing had physical effects on matter itself.

God spared them not and God relinquished part of the order within creation which had subsequent effects on humanity. It was another, consequential, effect of the necessary judgment on antediluvian humanity and on the 'sons of God', Genesis 6:1-4, who had 'left their first estate', Jude 1:6.

My understanding is that their enforced confinement caused a loss of material control and caused the instability within matter which we call 'radioactive decay'. That is why isotopic abundance cannot be used to determine time events before the Flood. And further explains the reduced longevity of humanity exposed to radiation at ground level (as well as cosmic radiation from space).

As a Licentiate of the Royal Society and as a Christian I find these statements quite logical. But I do not probe into mysteries. It is not my place to do so.

I find it better, and safer, to be obedient, in faith, and only to go as far as the word of God permits in understanding, and in stating, truth.

As commented, there is the matter of 'the fountains of the great deep broken up', Genesis 7:11, but I have not covered that as it is not in the question, as stated.


What was the Original Purpose of Fasting from "Wine" and "Olive Oil" in the Orthodox Tradition? The Orthodox are required to fast from "wine" and "olive oil" most Wednesdays and Fridays, for Lent, the Dormition of the Theotokos, the Nativity, and other fasts.
Nearly all Orthodox define "wine" as any alcoholic beverage. There are probably not any whom define "wine" as only wine and continue to drink beer and spirits on a fast day.
A majority of Orthodox define "olive oil" as simply olive oil; in other words, canola oil, vegetable oil, and any other vegan oil that is not olive oil is permitted for the majority of Orthodox members. There are some (a small minority) whom abstain from all the oils, and even some whom eat everything "dry" (xerophagia), such as pasta without tomato sauce.
As a matter of consistency, it would appear to me that if one were to define olive oil as only olive oil, then one would also define wine as only wine. It is true that the taste of olive oil is relatively superior to canola oil; however, it is hard to imagine that if canola oil existed in the first century that the Church would have permitted it.
Here are my questions:
What was the original purpose of the inclusion of wine in the items of fasting? I have read that people didn't drink water much back then, because it was very contaminated, instead opting for low-alcoholic beer or wine because it was much less contaminated. This could potentially lead one to the conclusion that "wine" was included as to encourage fasting from water, rather than intoxicating substances. Or, that piece of history could be a red herring, and the fast from "wine" simply does mean a fast from intoxicating substances. For example, in Canons 51 and 53 of the Apostolic Canons, wine is juxtaposed with marital relations, which the Orthodox also abstain from on fast days, implying that the fast from wine is a fast from the pleasurable effects of intoxicating substances; however, exercising, smoking, reading, laughing, and all other pleasurable activities except sex and food are permitted on fast days.
(As an aside, how did Christians consume water during fast days if it was only available to them in low-alcoholic beer/wine?)
What was the original purpose of the inclusion of olive oil in the items of fasting? I have read that in the first century olive oil was the only oil available, and the people tended to use it on all foods to substantially improve taste, and even used it on the skin, which was thought to make one look better. If this was the case than it is difficult for me to understand why canola oil is permitted in the majority of the Church. Perhaps there is some other component to olive oil that I am missing, or perhaps my assumption that canola oil is tolerated in the majority of the Church is incorrect?

Wine and oil are both blessings from God: "wine to gladden the heart of man, oil to make his face shine," as it says in Ps. 104:15. We forego these with other pleasures on the strictest fasting days.

With respect to wine, you are misinformed. In most Orthodox churches we abstain from all alcoholic beverages on strict fasting days. (The Russians seem to make an exception for beer. For people whose normal drink is vodka, I suppose beer is like water.)

Opinions vary regarding why we fast from olive oil. Some say it has to do with the fact that olive oil was once stored in animal skins, which made it an animal product. Others think it is connected to ancient classifications of foods that are no longer widely understood. For most of us, we are just faithfully following the current fasting rules without questioning why. My priest says it only applies to olive oil, and I believe that is the current consensus. But as with most things in Orthodoxy there is disagreement.

These fasting rules originated in a monastic context. With the collapse of the Byzantine cathedral rite after 1204, the monastic typikon came to govern Orthodox worship in non-monastic churches. The fasting rules of the typikon were also adopted, to a large extent, by the laity. But the laity are not monks, and the rules have never been applied strictly to the laity in their totality. (If they were, we would not eat at all during the first three days of Lent.)

It is also important to remember that we are to avoid being pharisaical. Being overly legalistic is just as bad as being too lax. For reasons of health, many Orthodox loosen the fasting rules, in consultation with their pastors. Most of us, when dining with non-Orthodox family and friends, will eat what is set before us, other than meat. (The rules are intended for our discipline, not for the inconvenience of others.) In some diaspora jurisdictions these days, fasting is barely practiced at all.

Even in Lent, the fast is eased slightly on weekends. We are permitted wine and oil on Saturdays and Sundays in all fasting seasons. For most of Advent and the Apostles' Fast we are permitted wine and oil on Tuesdays and Thursdays, as well.


Is white underwear necessary while being baptized in The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints? Is white underwear necessary while being baptized in The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints?

No. White is usually recommended, though. It is more practical, since the jumpsuits are also white.


What Protestant arguments exist for the perpetual virginity of Mary? It's common knowledge that Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodoxy have the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. Protestants generally don't have that belief.

Less known is that Zwingli and Luther believed in perpetual virginity, too. What are the arguments for the doctrine, not assuming papal authority?

There is no clear biblical evidence for the non-Virginity of Mary.

The Bible never says he had full blooded brothers and sisters.  I don't want to delve into translations which I don't understand (Aramaic words for niece, cousin, nephew, etc...), but it is clear that Jesus does however call many people his brothers, and exhorts us all to call others our brothers and sisters, who are clearly not siblings.
The Bible says Jesus was Mary's 'firstborn' son, but firstborn could be a title given to son's offered to the temple.  Then there's the use of the word 'until', in reference to Mary and Joseph's relations.  But, if I claim to lover and serve the Lord until my dying day, I certainly hope to do so after my dying day!

But there is an inkling of evidence for her not having any other children - although if you accept the brothers in (1.) as being other living sons of Joseph, it confuses the argument.

When Jesus is dying on the Cross (in John's gospel), He instructs His beloved disciple and he takes to take Mary into his house.  If she truly had other sons, that would be moot point for the other sons would have been there to take care of her.

Note, this is not an argument in relation to the doctrine that Mary was still materially a virgin after birth.  That requires adherence to the Dogma.

Virginity itself is not altogether uncommon in human history (Vestal Virgins, Jewish Virgins). Having a Child while remaining a virgin, is a singular event worthy of our Creator and Redeemer.


According to Lutherans, under what conditions (or at what moment) do the consecrated species cease to be the blood and body of Christ? I understand that Lutherans believe in the real, physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but not in such a way that the species cease to be true bread and wine. So you are physically eating God, but you are also physically eating bread. (Similar to the hypostatic union of Christs two natures: Christ is fully human and fully divine. The bread is fully bread but also fully Christ).

I was wondering when the consecrated species cease to be divine and return to normal, natural, mundane matter. I heard somewhere a long time ago that lutherans believe that the real presence only continues for duration of the liturgy and once the mass concludes the species return to being normal bread and wine, but I have not been able to confirm this.

Perhaps the Lutheran view is similar to the catholic view. That is, the sacramental union persists so long as the bread and wine are recognizable as bread and wine. Once they have gone mouldy, turned to vinegar, evaporated or been digested, the body and blood are no longer present.

As a former Lutheran, I was taught that the belief is that the sacramental union only persists through the liturgy, although the elements are still treated with respect afterwards.

Wikipedia's description of Lutheran Eucharistic beliefs seems to confirm this:

  In most Lutheran congregations, the administration of private communion of the sick and "shut-in" (those too feeble to attend services) involves a completely separate service of the Eucharist for which the sacramental elements are consecrated by the celebrant.[14]

Contrast this with Catholics, who bring the consecrated Host to the shut-ins without the need to celebrate Mass in their homes, and who have communion services when priests are unavailable and receive the consecrated Hosts which remain in the Tabernacle.

A comparison of Good Friday services also reveals important differences. Catholics do not have Mass on Good Friday, but still have communion using the Hosts in the Tabernacle. That is, Catholics do not celebrate the Eucharist, but still consume the Body and Blood of Christ. On the other hand, Lutherans have a service without communion at all. They do not celebrate the Eucharist and, thus, have no Host to consume.

Also from Wikipedia:

  Lutheran Eucharistic adoration is not commonly practiced, but when it occurs it is done only from the moment of consecration to reception.


Why was the name of Pontius Pilate included in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed? Why was the name of Pontius Pilate included in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed? Why was it important to mention his name in the creed? If only because of historicity, then wouldn't just a mention "governor of Judaea" have sufficed? Or at the very least the name of the Caesar would have served better then (just like it was a custom in many historical writings, Gospels included): "governor of Judaea under Emperor Tiberius".
Yet we see exactly Pontius Pilate's name mentioned. Why is it so? It is especially interesting a question when you consider the other names mentioned in the creed, that is, only two names: "Jesus Christ" and "Mary"!
Nicene creed that preceded the Niceno-Constantinopolitan did not include "Pontius Pilate", which means that there must have been a valid reason for the inclusion. Besides, the reason must be stated in the documents of the Second Council. However, I haven't met the stated reason yet. The wikipage on Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed doesn't have an answer to this question.

According to this site it has to do with the importance of preserving the historicity of the event surrounding the  execution of Jesus Christ.
It says in part:

The inclusion of Pilate’s name in the creed can be traced back to the very beginnings of the Catholic Church. This section of the prayer was already quoted by Tertullian by the early 3rd century. For the early Christians, it was essential to include Pilate’s name.
One of the primary reasons the Church has kept this inclusion is to reinforce the historicity of Jesus’ Passion. The existence of Pontius Pilate can be verified by sources outside of the Gospels and his name provides a powerful reminder that Jesus’ death occurred within the context of Roman rule and at a specific date in human history.


What is the Biblical Basis for saying that we "go to heaven"? I have found hundreds of Bible verses with heaven or heavens in them. But none of them said we "go to heaven".

We pray for the kingdom to come here.  Revelation has the new Jerusalem descending to earth. (Rev 21)

Why does anybody think we go to heaven? What is the Biblical Basis for this idea?

This is actually the dominant view of Christianity: the doctrine of an intermediate state after death and before the resurrection. "Going to heaven" means being with God in a non-bodied but conscious spiritual way after we die, before we experience resurrected bodily life in the New Heavens and New Earth. The main alternative view is that of Christian mortalism, often called "soul sleep", which says that we will not experience the time between our deaths and resurrections.

Many verses can be seen as indicating this view of the afterlife, including these:

Jesus now dwells in heaven:

  Acts 1:11: “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”

  Ephesians 1:19-20: ... That power is the same as the mighty strength he exerted when he raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms,

  Hebrews 8:1-2: Now the main point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by a mere human being.

Jesus says to one of the criminals crucified with him that he will join him:

  Luke 23:43: Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

Paul teaches that the alternative to this earthly life is to be with Christ:

  2 Corinthians 5:6-8: Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord. For we live by faith, not by sight. We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord.

  Philippians 1:21-24:  For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what shall I choose? I do not know! I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far; but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body.

From Revelation, the people of God serve him before his heavenly throne:

  Revelation 7:9, 15: After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. ... “they are before the throne of God
      and serve him day and night in his temple;
  and he who sits on the throne
      will shelter them with his presence.

And some verses suggest that when Jesus does come again to initiate his kingdom in the New Heavens and New Earth, that Christians who have died with come with him:

  Colossians 3:4: When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.

  1 Thessalonians 3:13: May he strengthen your hearts so that you will be blameless and holy in the presence of our God and Father when our Lord Jesus comes with all his holy ones.

  1 Thessalonians 4:14: For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him.

But I think most Christians who teach this view would agree that saying that salvation is about "going to heaven" is incomplete and unhelpful, and that it could lead to misunderstanding that humans being with Christ out of our bodies is natural rather than temporary and unnatural, and that our great hope is to go to heaven rather than to live with Christ in resurrected bodies on a restored and perfected earth. So it's not wrong, but it can be unhelpful.

There could be one another way in which people talking about "going to heaven" - having visions of heaven in this life. After several recent and unfortunately popular books this has been coined "Heaven Tourism" by its critics who consider it dangerous false teaching or false prophecy.


Why is the Vatican against "The Son of God" movie? I didn't watch that movie, I watched a Catholic Maronite priest saying that the Vatican issued a warning about the movie saying that it's not about the true message of Christianity.

The priest added that the movie is more about how the Jews and the Freemasons think of the Christ. Therefore it is delivering a false message about Christianity and the Bible and the theology. The priest advised against watching the movie.

Why would the Vatican be against the movie? What messages does the movie have that would concern the Vatican?

There are many inaccuracies and omissions (listed roughly from worst to less worse):

The piercing of the side of Christ didn't show blood and water
spewing out!
Mary Magdalen was constantly a tag-along with the disciples: when
they were in the tempest in the sea and even during the "laying on
of hands" after the Resurrection!
Mother Mary was not in the Upper Room!
Peter denied Christ 3× in the morning, in broad daylight, not before
the cock crow, which we didn't even hear!
Peter's faith was portrayed as though it, not Peter himself, was the
rock upon which the Church is built, as though our faith makes the
Church. This is Protestant ecclesiology. The Church still exists
even when we are unfaithful.
"The gates of hell will not prevail" etc. was omitted in Jesus'
saying Matt. 16:18.
"Lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil" was omitted
from the Our Father.
The renting of the veil was not explicitly shown.

Jews, Catholics, and Protestants were all consulted in making this film, so your Maronite priest friend is right about it being more Freemasonic, syncretistic, or naturalistic than Christian.

See this for more info.


Did Jesus' hypostatic union limit Christ's consciousness? Just half an hour ago, I watched an amazing video that had a visualization of a baby's development from conception to birth. Afterwards, as I went about satisfying bodily needs (like food), I had one line from Silent Night running through my head: "Jesus, Lord at thy birth." Then I suddenly had the realization that if the Son was in that fetus as it developed, He may not have been conscious for nine months.

I was surprised to find out that I was the one who previously asked when a person's soul/spirit unites with the body. Apparently, the official position is that it happens at conception. If this is true, then the Son united with His zygotic body at conception, which I assume could correctly be referred to as the Hypostatic Union. Thus, my question is: was the Son "conscious" while He was developing in Mary's womb?

A non-birth example would be when Jesus and his disciples went across the lake after feeding 5,000 men:

  Matthew 8:24 (NLT)
  24 Suddenly, a fierce storm struck the lake, with waves breaking into the boat. But Jesus was sleeping.

Jesus was sleeping, so his physical brain certainly would've been unconscious. Multiple times, Jesus made it clear that he didn't use his own divine power (having emptied himself, as Paul explains), depending instead on the Spirit's power and his Father's commands. Did this also apply while he was asleep? Was the Son also "asleep" while Jesus slept?

Basically, what I'm trying to ask here is: did the Hypostatic Union limit the consciousness of the Son? Of course, even trying to apply the term "conscious" to God is a bit wibbly-wobbly, but I think the gist is clear.

I would most appreciate writings from the great theologians of the church up to the Great Schism, but if an answer would be better by referencing a later great theologian, then the closer to Wesleyan, the better. Regardless, Roman Catholic and/or Orthodox writings are fine as sources.

I think you're asking questions about "the Son" that can't be answered without "dividing the question", as they say in parliamentary procedure. That is, you simply have to ask the question about Jesus' divine nature and His human nature separately. I'm not saying that we need to separate the two natures of Jesus - that's heretical. I'm saying that they are distinct but not separate, without mixture or confusion, as the Definition of Chalcedon teaches us:

  This one and the same Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son [of God]
  must be confessed to be in two natures, unconfusedly, immutably,
  indivisibly, inseparably [united], and that without the distinction of
  natures being taken away by such union, but rather the peculiar
  property of each nature being preserved and being united in one Person
  and subsistence, not separated or divided into two persons, but one
  and the same Son and only-begotten, God the Word, our Lord Jesus
  Christ,...

The divine nature of Jesus is omniscient, and the hypostatic union surely does not change the fact that the divine nature still knows everything. The human nature of Jesus, while on earth, slept at times, and that sleep was normal human sleep.


What is the basis for the belief that there were twelve Magi? Matthew, the only gospel of the four Canonical gospels to mention the Magi, does not mention their number. Many traditions say there were three, presumably because of the three gifts. The Syriac churches, on the other hand, number them twelve. What is the basis for number 12?

The basis for the belief that there were twelve Magi (or more) is a very obscure, apocryphal manuscript called The Revelation of The Magi that was discovered in a Turkish monastery in the 18th century.

This Syriac manuscript can be found in the Zuqnin Chronicle (1) and the Opus Imperfectum in Matthaeum (2) and currently resides with The Vatican (Biblioteca apostolica, syr. 162).

Brent Landau has published a dissertation on the subject: The Sages and the Star-Child: An Introduction to the Revelation of the Magi, An Ancient Christian Apocryphon

From Landau's summary and introduction to the text:

  It is also worth mentioning that the list of the names of the twelve
  Magi and their fathers in Rev. Magi 2:3 is found in works by a number
  of other Syriac writers. However, the names from this list are never
  referenced again in the narrative of Rev. Magi, and they are so
  widespread throughout Syriac literature that they are likely not to
  have originated in Rev. Magi, but instead were added to the text at
  some point after its creation. Indeed, there are hints scattered
  throughout Rev. Magi that the Magi constituted a group much larger
  than twelve: the text uses the Syriac term mashritha to describe them
  on several occasions, a word used in the Syriac NT to translate the
  Greek parembolos, used almost exclusively for large assemblies of
  people (e.g., Acts 21:34; Heb 11:34, 13:11). (4, emphases added)


What denominations consider Apocrypha to be heretical? Over several years I have asked several pastors and preachers of differing denominations to comment on some books considered to be Apocrypha. Most generally my question was ignored, but on a couple of occasions I was told that they were heretical.  In the 1611 edition of the King James they included several books called the Apocrypha, and some of those books have become a part of the Catholic canon. However; some books have been rejected by both Catholics and Protestants.

I am not questioning why or even why not they are accepted or rejected; only which books are considered Heretical and the reasons they are. I am curious to know what denominations hold that opinion of the Apocrypha and if it extends to all books or to only certain books.

Please indicate which denomination you are representing and the basis for your answer (I.E. doctrine, common acceptance, and so on).

As a Presbyterian coming from a reformed tradition, we would see the canon of scripture defined by the Hebrew Bible which is received by the Jewish community as the books which represent the "rule of faith" for the community  In addition, we accept the 27 Greek books called the New Testament as the books inspired by God to represent the unchanging teaching of the Apostles.  (http://www.bible-researcher.com/bruce1.html for discussion of the development of the New Testament can)

The Westminister Confession of Faith which is the doctrinal standard for Presbyterians state:

III. The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the Canon of Scripture; and, therefore, are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings. (Chapter One)

So while these books are not seen as being part of inspired scripture they may as any human books have useful information in them.  Only when statements in these books would make statements contrary to the Hebrew Bible and New Testament would such statements be considered "heretical."  We would not see the whole books as such.

These books, for instance, may provide useful historical information on the thinking of the Jews from the end of the Hebrew Bible to the beginning of the New ( a period of about 400 years. )  So we would not see the entire books as heretical.


What did the commisioning of the preaching of crusades involve? I was reading about St. Bernard of Clairvaux, and this appears:

  The pope commissioned Bernard to preach a new Crusade

A similar phrase appear in the respective Wikipedia article.

I get what it means to "preach a Crusade" (call Christians in favour of it and to join if possible). The article in the Catholic Encyclopedia about Crusades states:

  All crusades were announced by preaching.

But, what did the commissioning of such preaching by the Pope involved? What were the responsibilities? Could someone provide a reference for this? Maybe a papal document related to such commissioning?

It doesn't appear that there was a formal "commissioning" of any sort. Most of the information that follows is actually summarized from articles on Wikipedia (on Louis VII of France, Bernard of Clairvaux, and Pope Eugene III).

The story apparently begins in 1144, when Louis VII of France was successfully fighting Theobald II of Champagne. At the very end of the war, Louis personally participated in burning the town of Vitry-les-Francois—including the church building, where at least a thousand people had sought refuge.

In atonement for this, and to look after some of the Franks in the Holy Land who were in danger from the Seljuk Turks, Louis decided that he wanted to mount a crusade. After Odessa fell to the Turks, Pope Eugene (Eugenius) III wrote a papal bull to him, Quantum Praedecessores, giving official papal blessing to anyone who wanted to accompany him on the crusade.

Bernard of Clairvaux got involved because he was a friend of the pope, and in fact had influenced him to enter the Cistercian order. It would seem natural that the pope would turn to him to preach on behalf of the crusade—Bernard was known as a fantastically eloquent preacher.

In short, the pope didn't formally "commission" Bernard to preach the crusade. He asked his good friend who was very well known as a preacher.


Does Pope Francis' rewording on the subject of capital punishment in the Catechism trump those of Pope John Paul II's encyclical Evangelium vitae? Does Pope Francis'rewording on the subject of capital punishment in the Catechism of the Catholic Church trump those of Pope John Paul II in his encyclical letter Evangelium vitae?

I have always looked on the Catechism of the Catholic Church as a teaching aid towards catholic teachings. But Pope Francis' rewording of the Church's teaching seems to be in contradiction to the words of Pope St. John Paul II in his Gospel of Life (Evagelium vitae) which permits such an application in very limited circumstances.

  This is the context in which to place the problem of the death penalty. On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God's plan for man and society. The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is "to redress the disorder caused by the offence".46 Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfils the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people's safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behaviour and be rehabilitated. - EVANGELIUM VITAE

Since these words are from an encyclical and the rewording of Pope Francis on the subject of capital punishment are not, do Pope John Paul II encyclical letter holds precedence over the Catechism of the Catholic Church's wording as 2018?

Pope Francis does not seem to address the possibility that inmates can and have ordered the killing of innocent individual while being incarcerated. A few evil doers will almost always find a way to do evil even from prison. Just ask the Devil and he is equally incarcerated in hell. There are more cases in which moral theologians can see that incarcerations or even detention would not be advisable either in some emergency situations.

Pope Francis on capital punishment: doctrine built on shifting sands?

  The death penalty

  Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.

  Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.

  Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”, and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide. - Vatican Press Office

Pope Francis' revision of the Catechism does not contradict John Paul II's thinking on this issue, especially as seen in the encyclical Evangelium Vitae.  Francis' revision is just finishing the work that John Paul II began regarding capital punishment.  Therefore Francis has not 'trumped' Evangelium Vitae.

Pope John Paul II

First, let's have another look at section 56 while emphasizing a different side of the story with bold text:

  On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in
  civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or
  even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in
  the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human
  dignity and thus, in the end, with God's plan for man and society.
  [...]

  It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and
  extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon,
  and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in
  cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be
  possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of
  steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such
  cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.

  In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the
  Catholic Church remains valid: "If bloodless means are sufficient to
  defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order
  and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such
  means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of
  the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human
  person".[48]

  -Evangelium Vitae, 56

John Paul II's thought on this issue moved the Church in the direction of abolition by way of human dignity, and this is exactly what we see in section 56.

Safeguarding the Death Penalty?

The key question which concerns us is this: Did John Paul II intend to safeguard the death penalty in Evangelium Vitae?  Of course everyone knows that he wanted to severely limit the practical application of capital punishement, but did he also want to safeguard the possibility of the practice?  Only if he intended to safeguard it would there be a tension between John Paul II's teaching and Francis' teaching.

There are two reasons why I don't see evidence of this. First, his reasons given for limiting capital punishment reflect an understanding which sees the death penalty as justified only "when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society" (EV 56).  Thus he saw capital punishment as a necessary evil that ought to be dispensed with as soon as possible.  Nowhere in Evangelium Vitae do we find the claim that capital punishment cannot be abolished.  On the contrary, we read that the cases where capital punishment can be legitimately applied "are very rare, if not practically non-existent," and that "If bloodless means are sufficient," then they must be used.

The second reason is weaker.  It is that his teaching on capital punishment caused wariness among conservative theologians who affirmed the Church's long practice of allowing capital punishment, such as Avery Cardinal Dulles.  Such theologians were relieved when then-Prefect of the CDF, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, wrote a letter to Cardinal McCarrick.  The third section of that letter informs us that Catholics may disagree with the Holy Father on the matter of capital punishment.  The conservative theologians were worried about an abolition of the death penalty, and their fears were not assuaged by the writings of John Paul II.

Pope Francis

Pope Francis' revision to the Catechism makes use of arguments which are very similar to Evangelium Vitae (e.g. a focus on safeguarding society, emphasizing modern prison systems capable of carrying out life sentences, and a very similar theory of punishment).  Like John Paul II, he relies heavily on the idea of human dignity, even using it as the centerpiece of his conclusion, "the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person" (This quote is included in the draft for the Catechism revision and originally comes from this address).

John Paul II said, "If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means..." (EV 56).

Francis has essentially said: Bloodless means are sufficient, therefore the death penalty is inadmissible.  John Paul II wrote the conditional; Francis affirmed the antecedent.  We all know what follows.  "Trumping" only comes into play when there are opposing views.  It doesn't apply here.

(It should be noted that while I personally disagree with Francis' revision, I obviously do not believe that it is inherently contrary to John Paul II's teaching on this subject.)


How does C. S. Lewis define the "natural" and "supernatural" in his book Miracles? In the second chapter of Miracles, C. S. Lewis sets out to define the terms "natural" and "supernatural" as well as the term "sub-natural". I'm interested in help drawing out what Lewis is saying in concrete terms. I'm also interested (as an aside) in any other Christian sources which would be of help. Are Lewis's definitions novel in this regard?

From my notes on chapter 2 of Miracles:

Miracle: “An interference with nature by supernatural power.”
Naturalists: “Those who believe that nothing exists except nature.”
Supernaturalists: “Those who believe that, besides nature, there exists something else.”
Nature: Defined by naturalists as “everything there is.” More rigorously, the natural is “what springs up, or comes forth, or arrives, or goes on, of its own accord: the given, what is there already: the spontaneous, the unintended, the unsolicited.”
Supernature: “That which causes nature to exist.”

The naturalist's contention that "nothing exists besides nature" basically means that everything that has ever happened is explainable via natural laws (a viewpoint also known as "physical determinism"). The Supernaturalist believes that someone or something can intervene and subvert the natural course of events. From my notes on chapters 3-4:

In principle, everything that exists in Nature must be explainable as arising from elsewhere in Nature, according to the Naturalist. Anything that is unexplainable (not merely unexplained) from this standpoint would destroy the entire premise of Naturalism.

In chapter 3 or 4, Lewis mentions advances in quantum physics as evidence that others have put forward for the existence of the Supernatural. Many quantum events are to date unexplained, and, many Christian apologists argue, unexplainable. Lewis says that he doubts they are physically unexplainable (and therefore not a proof of Supernaturalism) but casually uses the word "Subnatural" to describe the hypothetical existence of unexplainable quantum events. He essentially says that such events would, strictly speaking, be "Supernatural" but he avoids using that word because it would be "a shock" to the reader.
Lewis says elsewhere in chapter 2 that multiple natures may exist. A fictional example of this would be his Chronicles of Narnia. If you recall, The Magician's Nephew establishes that there are many worlds (which are all separate universes), including our own world and that of Narnia. Each of these worlds was created separately and is governed by its own laws (Narnia in particular being a much more magical place than our world). At times, however, there may be divine intervention to bring the two worlds together, like when Aslan calls the Pevensie children from our world into the world of Narnia. In this example, our own world/nature is the "Supernature" to the world of Narnia, because things that existed in their own right in our world sprang into existence, from Narnia's perspective, seemingly from nothing. Similarly, when Aslan visited our world in The Silver Chair, there was no way for our laws of physics to explain his presence or his existence; in this case, his intrusion into our world was by "Supernatural power" (that is, power foreign to the "Nature" that we know, being from Narnia) and therefore "miraculous."
If I recall correctly, Lewis did not give a specifically Christian defense of miracles until later in the book. Therefore he does not mention God at this point. But God himself would be the ultimate Supernature, seeing as he exists entirely in his own right and for his own sake, is sustained by nothing, and sustains everything.
In Lewis' conception, heaven qualifies as a "Nature" and, when angels visit our world, heaven qualifies in such a context as "Supernature."
Lewis, if I remember right, acknowledges that his definitions are novel, but says that he defined his terms the way he did by necessity. There hadn't been a technical book on the existence of miracles prior to this one, and even the word "miracle" was defined by him in the book a little differently than it often is used in casual conversation. However, the ideas he expresses through his technical language are not novel, except perhaps for his idea of the "cardinal difficulty of the naturalist."


How do Jehovah's Witnesses understand the essential nature of hell, and how does it differ from that of Seventh-day Adventists? Earlier this week, I was talking to a friend, more arguing really, and the subject of hell came up. And he said something that got me thinking. He said "There's no hell as many of us believe it. There's no eternal fire as we're told. There is only death for those who sin." And he went on to quote Romans 6:23,

  The wages of sin is death (ESV).

So that got me thinking and for the past few days I've been troubled. Like if God really loves us why would He subject us to that kind of torture for all eternity? I mean, isn't He the same God that gave His son to die for us? Isn't He the gracious and the merciful and the forgiving God that stuck with the hard headed Israelites in the desert for forty years?

Now considering my friend is of Jehovah's Witness background, is it possible that that is what they believe hell to be? And how different is it from what the Seventh-day Adventists believe it to be?

Wikipedia has decent information on this topic.  First, the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses on this subject:

  Watch Tower publications teach that hell (hades or sheol) is not a place of fiery torment, but rather the "common grave of mankind", a place of unconscious non-existence. Gehenna, the Bible word commonly translated "hellfire", is said to describe a judgment of complete destruction, from which resurrection is not possible. They reason that complete destruction does not allow for literal "torture" of the wicked, as the deceased person is not conscious.

This describes a form of annihilationism that appears to be consistent with what your friend is describing.  However, there doesn't appear to be much difference when comparing these views to those of the Seventh-day Adventists:

  Seventh-day Adventists believe that death is a state of unconscious sleep until the resurrection. [...] They reject the traditional doctrine of hell as a state of everlasting conscious torment, believing instead that the wicked will be permanently destroyed after the millennium.

For more on this, as well as a comparison with other systems of Christian belief, see Wikipedia's article on Christian views on hell.


Do the conditions for mortal sin apply to non-catholics? There are three conditions for a sin to be mortal:

It must be a grave sin. Eg. Anything from the 10 commandments, Adultery, Murder etc.
It must be committed with full consent of the will.
The person who commits the sin must be aware that it is a grave sin. ("Full knowledge")

This leads me to wonder, are non-Catholics who don't believe in mortal sin by that very fact, immune from committing mortal sins? My reasoning is that, a person who doesn't believe in mortal sin could be said to be "unaware" that their sins are grave, and if they are "unaware" that their sins are grave, then their sins are not mortal, therefore they won't go to Hell (I think the correct terminology is to say that they are in invincible ignorance).

Extrapolating this line of reasoning, doesn't this mean that most if not all non-Catholics will be saved? Because these non-Catholics are presumably "unaware" that they have to be part of the Catholic church in order to be saved. And if they are "unaware" of this then they are not in a state of mortal sin because they don't have full knowledge and are thus in invincible ignorance and wont go to Hell.

On the other hand, imagine that the non-Catholic has only met a single Catholic in their entire life and the only thing that the Catholic said to them was "you have to convert to my religion or you will go to Hell". In this case is the non-Catholic still "unaware" that they need to join the church or does a brief warning such as this count as being given "Full knowledge"?

Finally, it seems possible to say that all non-Catholics are in a state of invincible ignorance, because if they had full knowledge that they have to become Catholic to be saved, then they would hurry up and convert. But they don't do this, so it seems fair to assume that they are unconvinced and therefore unaware. (Who on earth would become sincerely convinced that to go to Heaven and avoid Hell they have to join the Church, and then not do it?)

In summary my questions are

How is it possible for a non-Catholic to commit a mortal sin? and
Are all non-Catholics in the state of invincible ignorance as per my reasoning above, and if not, where did I go wrong?

If the non-Catholic is not baptized, the non-Catholic has original sin and is damned, "unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock," as Pope Eugene IV puts it in his Cantate Domino.

If the non-Catholic is baptized, he does not have original sin, but he can certainly commit actual sins (mortal or venial).

Cain and Onan—who committed the sins of fratricide and contraception, respectively—were before Christ, yet that did not except them from sin.


Is there an argument that God, as a self-proving entity, is necessary for logic? I recall hearing an argument for God (or, really, that being a non-Christian was equivalent to being a nihilist) that in order for logic to be valid, one could not have circular arguments, but since you can't prove your premises, all arguments had to be unfounded or circular unless you introduced God as some sort of self-proving entity (both premise and proof thereof).

Is anyone familiar with this argument?  I have forgotten the details (e.g. why it is okay for God to effectively be a circular argument but not for anything else to be) and have not yet been able to find it anywhere.  Does this argument have a name, and is it (or at least a summary) written somewhere?

I think you're referring to The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God (TAG). It was first formulated by Immanuel Kant, but has been refined, disputed and defended over the years.

The argument

One formulation of the argument is,

  Prove A: The Christian God exists.
  Step 1 ~A: (Assume the opposite of what we are trying to prove): The Christian God does not exist.
  Step 2 (~A--> B): If God does not exist, then there is no intelligible experience since God is the precondition of intelligibility
  Step 3 (~B): There is intelligible experience (Contradiction!)
  Step 4 (~ ~A): It is not the case that God does not exist (Modus Tollens on 2 and 3)
  Step 5 (A): --> God does exist (Law of negation.)

  Source: Reformed Apologist (blog)

The finer details of whether this argument actually is valid, of course, need a more thorough explanation. The argument isn't fundamentally based on inductive nor deductive, but  transcendental reasoning. Kant describes transcendental as follows:

  I entitle transcendental all knowledge which is occupied not so much with objects as with the mode of our knowledge of objects insofar as this mode of knowledge is to be possible a priori.

Thus to properly examine and understand the argument, I suspect a more in-depth studying is required. I'm not a philosopher and don't claim to understand TAG, so I'll just point you elsewhere:

Further reading

Butler, Michael R. The Transcendental Argument for God's Existence.


How was Moses able to speak to over 600,000 people at once? This is a followup question to the question about Jesus speaking to crowds of 5,000 people without audio installation.
The book of Exodus says that Israelites had 600,000 men of fighting age. And often it has paragraphs like this:

Exodus 35:4
Moses said to the whole Israelite community, "This is what the LORD has commanded:

There are many, many more examples like this. Sometimes, when Moses says something, and then events happen that affect the whole community:

Numbers 16:31 (NIRV)
31 As soon as Moses finished speaking all of those words, what he had said came true. The ground under them broke open. 32 It opened its mouth. It swallowed up those men. In fact, it swallowed up everyone who lived in their houses. It swallowed all of Korah’s men. And it swallowed up everything they owned. 33 They went down into the grave alive. Everything they owned went down with them. The ground closed over them. They died. And so they disappeared from the community.

So, how was a community of at least 600,000 males able to hear Moses when he addressed them? That is 30-times more people than would fill Madison Square Garden.

Most commentators follow a common Jewish understanding that the Jewish leaders immediately relayed his words to their clans or households.

  Unto all Israel. It cannot be supposed that Moses spoke to the whole multitude of the people so as to be heard by them. Hence the Jewish interpreters say that he spoke to the elders of the people, who carried his words to the people at large. This is just; for what was thus mediately communicated to the people might be fairly described as spoken to them; and we find from other passages in the Pentateuch that the phrase, “the elders of Israel,” in the mind of the writer, was equivalent to “the congregation of Israel” (comp. e.g. Exod. 12:3 with ver. 21; Lev. 9:1 with ver. 5). But through whatever medium conveyed, it was to the people that these words were addressed; this is emphatically a book for the people. (The Pulpit Commentary: Deuteronomy 1:1)


Does anybody teach specifically about the existence of ghosts? Are there any Christian traditions that have specific teachings that supporting the existence of Ghosts (in the sense of being the spirits of or at least resembling dead people)?

For example, I have heard that JW's believe that ghosts are evil spirits that are made by Satan to take on the form of dead people and appear to men (who mostly fear them) in order to deceive men into thinking that the wages of sin is not death but that we become like gods. For this they cite:

  "And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." (Genesis 3:4-5).

Are there there any other similar doctrines, and if so what Biblical basis do they claim for these teachings, and among which traditions are they given?

I think you could make a pretty solid case from the Bible that the spirits of men, once dead, stay dead to this world and are are only active* in another place. In fact, no mainline traditions I know of teach specifically in the existence of ghosts, and quite a few teach against such a thing being possible. There are of course a few exceptional groups claiming to be Christian that have other doctrines, but they are on the fringe and many could arguably be counted as cults.

What is taught and believed by wide swaths of Christianity is that evil spirits are real and can manifest themselves in physical fashions in this world. The exact teachings on this are very diverse, some peddling such an obsession with the spirit world that every shadow comes to hold it's own set of wraiths. Others seem proclaim that the spirit world is irrelevant in our modern times and couldn't care less.

I believe the truth lies somewhere between those two extremes. Most of Protestantism (certainly the Reformed and more conservative circles on down the lines to some pretty generic Evangelical branches) would argue that while evil spirits are real and can and sometimes do have physical manifestations, the important thing to remember is that "He that is in us is stronger than he that is in the world." In other words, as believers in Christ with his Spirit living in us, we have naught to fear from any spirit. Those that are not in Christ run a risk both in not heeding the spirit world and in listening to it and catering to it without possessing any power that can overcome it. I would say the greater risk they run is in their relationship with God not being set to rights, spirits --however real-- should be the least of their worries.

* The timing of this is widely disputed, but is of no consequence to answering this question. Whether spirits sleep until the final judgement or whether the saints are taken directly to be with the Lord doesn't matter here as there is general agreement that this world is no longer their domain.


Who, exactly, are James son of Alphaeus and Judas the Son [Brother] of James? One note specifically is that some translations read that Judas (not Iscariot) was known as Judas brother of James, but most say Judas Son of James.

Luke 6:16 NIV

  Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.

Compare that to:

Luke 6:16 KJV

  And Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.

So, who were the apostles named Judas and James son of Alphaeus, exactly? If these apostles were brothers, wouldn't they share the same father? James is known as James son of Alphaeus...

Luke 6:15 NIV

  Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the
  Zealot,

In Jude, the author also introduces himself as the brother of James
Jude 1:1 NIV

  Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James,

However, this can also be Judas the brother of Christ and James, also the brother of Christ, but not necessarily the original apostles named Judas and James.

I ask because today at study, the individual giving the study was positing that Judas brother/son of James and James were both brothers of Christ, whereas I have it understood that none of Christ's brothers came to faith in him until the post-resurrection appearances.

Any help is appreciated!

According to the Bible, there was a tax collector named Matthew (also called Levi) son of Alphaeus. James son of Alphaeus is most likely Matthew's brother.

As said in the comments, there were many people by the names of Jude and of James. Jude could have been anybody; and if Jude is the son of James, his dad was not a disciple nor a brother of Jesus. Most of the Disciples were as old as teenagers, with the exception of Peter. Only Peter and Jesus had to pay taxes (Matthew 17:24-27). Jude couldn't have been a brother of Jesus because none of them believed He was the Messiah until after the resurrection. Greek translations show that Jude was called Jude James. In the Israelite culture, sons would inherit their father's name. So James was probably Jude's dad.


Why is Jesus portrayed and remembered in a state of suffering? My observation of Christianity is that Jesus Christ is portrayed, worshiped and promoted in his state on the cross: suffering, crucified, having wounds. I don't see what sense this makes. This seems like a form of sadism.

Why is he not portrayed healthy? Why aren't his good deeds before the last supper remembered instead?

Catholics portray, worship, and promote Jesus in all of His states of being, actions, words, etc.

A strong emphasis is placed on his suffering and death on a cross because it was in this act that He atoned for the sins of all humanity.  This is the single most important thing He did because without it, we have no hope.

Paragraph 623 of the Catholic Catechism states:

  By his loving obedience to the Father, "unto death, even death on a cross" (Phil 2:8), Jesus fulfills the atoning mission (cf. Is 53:10) of the suffering Servant, who will "make many righteous; and he shall bear their iniquities" (Is 53:11; cf. Rom 5:19)

It would be highly mistaken to think that Catholics only focus on the suffering of Christ. The Catholic Church teaches that in rising from the dead He confirms who he is and the work that He accomplished by His death.

Paragraph 651 of the Catechism states:

  "If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain."521 The Resurrection above all constitutes the confirmation of all Christ's works and teachings. All truths, even those most inaccessible to human reason, find their justification if Christ by his Resurrection has given the definitive proof of his divine authority, which he had promised.

I'm sure with a little investigation, many examples can be found of Catholic images, prayers, etc. the are devoted to the healthy, happy, resurrected, glorious, etc. natures of Jesus Christ.


Is there a biblical basis for God calling one to place one's career above their other duties? I've tried to phrase this question several ways now, and none of them are really to my liking. I will just ask it clumsily and provide more details as they are asked of me.

Does God ever call people to lives devoted to their careers?

For example, suppose someone says to himself "God has called me to forego starting a family in favor of devoting my life to being the best dog groomer I can be." I choose a particularly strange career on purpose. The work of a doctor and the work of a dog groomer is equally meaningless if it is not blessed by God. I suppose my question, therefore, is whether there is precedent that God asks for and accepts such a life, or whether this hypothetical dog groomer is deluding himself.

There is no specific Biblical precedent for such a claim - at least not in your example. But there is also no Biblical reason to refute such a claim, either.  (Unless the claim is a direct contradiction of clear Biblical teaching.)

The Scriptures give examples of people called to be Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, and Preachers (Ephesians 4:11) and other ministries that directly serve God, or God's purpose. He has also ordained Kings. (Saul and David, for example).

Nowhere in Scripture is anyone specifically called to be a baker, a server, or other secular job.

There is validity and Biblical precendent in a claim to a career serving God as a Missionary, for example, or a Pastor, Priest, or other Church official.  We are all called to serve God in one way or another, and most traditions believe that God specifically calls people into positions of authority, such as those mentioned previously.  Exactly how they are called, and how they can be sure is likely the subject for a different question, as it varies based on factors such as denomination, interpretation of Scripture, and tradition.

However...

The Bible does tell us that no matter what our career is, we should do it "as unto the Lord", meaning that we should do our best as if we were working for God Himself.  Several examples of those serving honorably doing ordinary (secular) tasks and jobs do abound.  The woman at the Well giving water, for example, or the people called to feed the hungry, fight in the battles, serve their masters.  Being a good servant is a basic Christian principle, and is both commanded and honored in Scripture.

To answer your comment, it is entirely possible that God does call us to serve in secular jobs.  God is, after all, sovereign.  God alone knows where the line is between His sovereignty, and the free will He allows us.


Why did God wrestle with Jacob? Sorry for asking a question kid in my Catechism class asked, but I didn't know the answer and she is an expert level 7th grader.

Why did God wrestle with Jacob if they're both good?
Was God actually trying to kill Jacob?
Was there some reason Jacob needed to be injured and was he seriously injured?

The short answer is "To teach Jacob an important lesson."

This all takes place, of course, in Genesis 32.

First, to your first question: Jacob wasn't "good" by any means.  If you look at Jacob before this, he has stolen the blessing that was Esau's birthright. (Genesis 27).  He had several children with women he didn't love, and was certainly no great father to them.  (Genesis 30-31).

By the time he wrestled with this angel (or with God depending on the translation - I'm going to stick with God) in chapter 32 starting in verse 24, he'd pretty much shown that he was not a "good" man at all.

Yet, God chose him to the the father of the nation of Israel.

To the second question:  was God trying to kill Jacob?  In the wrestling match, Jacob wrestles with God until daybreak (verse 24).  Then God touches the hollow of Jacob's thigh and dislocates it, demonstrating that He could have easily defeated Jacob at any time.  This was a lesson in humility - showing Jacob that compared to God, he was nothing.

That also answers the third question.  Jacob was injured - he was disabled by a mere touch, to show that God is powerful and compared to God, he is nothing.  Whether he was "seriously injured" depends on whether or not you consider a dislocated hip "seriously injured".

Yet, knowing full well that he was nothing, Jacob did something brave and remarkable. He refused to give up until God gave him a blessing.  He continued to fight, but now it was for God, not against God.

I believe that the reason for the encounter was to ensure that Jacob, who became Israel afterward, had the correct motivation, heart, and attitude toward God.  it was a lesson in humility, and Jacob responded by a show of faith and longing for God.


Is the Pope limited in his authority over the Order of Malta? Is the Pope limited in his authority over the Catholic Order of Malta? How is the jurisdiction affected with the pope over the (Catholic) Sovereign Military Order of Malta since it is able to procure their own passports just like the Holy See is able to do so.

  Raymond de Souza: The Order of Malta is a sovereign entity, like any State, and the Holy Father has no authority to intervene in its internal administrative affairs, just as he may not intervene in the administration matters of Norway, India or the United States.

Is there anything in Canon Law that permits the pope to intervene in the affairs of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta?

Canon Law and secular law are separate concepts. According to New Advent:

  Contrasted with the imperial or Caesarian law (jus caesareum), canon law is sometimes styled pontifical law (jus pontificium), often also it is termed sacred law (jus sacrum), and sometimes even Divine law (jus divinum: c. 2, De privil.), as it concerns holy things, and has for its object the wellbeing of souls in the society divinely established by Jesus Christ.

Source : "Canon Law", New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia

According to Canon 331 of the current Code of Canon Law on vatican.va:

  Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.

Source: Canon 331, Code of Canon Law

The jurisdiction being spoken of here is Ecclesiastical, not Civil. The Pope has the power to excommunicate officers of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (SMOM), order them to do penance, grant special dispensations to them to have married priests, or otherwise exercise his ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The SMOM is sovereign from a civil sense - it is its own "Caesar" as much as the US is (or the Republic of Ireland, or Italy, or Poland, etc.).

Caesaropapism, where the Pope and Caesar are the same person, applied to the historical Papal States. It seems to apply today in the jurisdiction of the Vatican City state itself, but in no other place. With reference to the SMOM (or the USA, or Ireland, etc.), the Pope is the Pope and Caesar is the civil authorities.


The ramifications of the severing of ties between the Eucumenical Patriarchate and the Russian Church This may be highly politically charged right now, however can anyone please explain what previously intercommuning churches will be directly impacted by the severing of ties between the Eucumenical Patriarchate and the Russian Orthodox Church (other than the obvious schism between Constantiople and Russia)?

Moscow breaks communion with Constantinople

Will other churches lose communion with Russia? With Constantinople?

Are there other effects that we can expect to see?

For those not familiar with the situation, on October 15, 2018, a Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church ceased communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople.  The Synod's resolution read:

  Henceforth and until the Constantinople Patriarchate renounces its accepted anti-canonical decisions, for all clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church it is not possible to serve with the clergy of the Constantinople Church; and for the laity, it is not possible to participate in the sacraments served in its churches.

The "anti-canonical decisions" that the resolution refers to are those undertaken by the Ecumenical Patriarch to, according to the Russian Orthodox Church*:

"lift the anathema from Philaret Denisenko, the self-proclaimed 'Patriarch” of the “Kiev Patriarchate”', which was placed on him by the Moscow Patriarchate for his oath breaking and unrepentant schism from the canonical Church, leading others into that schism'

and

revoking "the document it signed 300 years ago transferring the Kiev Metropolia to the Moscow Patriarchate"

Although several autocephalous Orthodox Churches have expressed support for the Russian Orthodox Church in this matter, no other Orthodox Church has as yet broken communion with Constantinople.  The Orthodox Church in America, which itself was granted autocephaly by the Moscow Patriarchate in 1970, has made the decision that its members may continue to commune in parishes of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese in America (which falls under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarch).  Furthermore, I don't think that the Ecumenical Patriarch has reciprocated the Russian decision, forbidding clergy and laity from participating in services within a Russian Orthodox Church.  My reading of the Synod's resolution would also not bar lay Orthodox who previously attended a church under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarch from participating in Russian Orthodox services, but it would bar clergy from the Patriarchate from serving in a Russian Orthodox Church.

It should be noted, I think, that many of the recent decisions undertaken by the Ecumenical Patriarch have been controversial and have faced criticism, even within the Constantinople Patriarchate itself (e.g. Mt. Athos).  A pan-Orthodox council held in 2016 was boycotted by the Russian, Antiochian, Georgian and Bulgarian Patriarchates for various reasons.

* Holy Synod Resolution: Moscow Patriarchate Ceases Communion for Clergy and Laity with the Constantinople Patriarchate, October 15, 2018


What was the language that Enoch spoke and did the Book of Enoch get written 3000 years BC is there any proof or carbon dating of that? I would like to know if the Book of Enoch was dated around 3000 BC and what language did he speak and is there any carbon dating that was use on any book found? And where are the oldest Scripture of his writings kept?

Just because it's called the Book of Enoch doesn't mean it's written by him.  It's considered one of Pseudopigraphical book, literally "false attribution" (See: Pseudepigrapha (Wikipedia).

The subsequent description was taken from the IVP Dictionary of New Testament Background, Entry: Enoch, Books Of.

1 Enoch consists of 5 distinct compositions:

Book of the Watchers (Chapter 1-36) : oldest Aramaic fragment is Dead Sea Scrolls dated first half of the 2nd century BC.  Scholars believe the book took shape in the 3rd or early 2nd century BC.
The Similitudes (Chapter 37-71) : no fragments have been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.  Some scholars suggested it was a late 3rd century AD Christian composition, but some dated it to the early 1st century AD prior to 70 AD.
The Astronomical Book (Chapters 72-82) : oldest Aramaic fragment have been dated to the 3rd century BC.
The Book of Dreams (Chapters 83-90) : scholars believe it was written at the time of the Maccabean revolt (167 BC)
The Epistle of Enoch (Chapters 91-105): scholars have dated it to the early 1st century BC; others dated it to the early 2nd century BC

Almost all of the Dead Sea Scrolls collection is housed in the Shrine of the Book (part of the Israel Museum) in Jerusalem: Dead Sea Scrolls.  See the wikipedia article about Radiocarbon and Paleographic dating.


Why is Mark not the first gospel? We all know that Mark was the first gospel ever written. Why then is it that when the New Testament was compiled, Mark was not listed as the first book in the New Testament? What are the reasons that the Early Fathers put Matthew first?

If the Early Fathers didn't know Mark was the earliest gospel when they compiled New Testament, surely they could reverse their decision if they knew, couldn't they?

There was no mandate that the gospels should appear in the order they were written once they were gathered into a collection.  This is true of the rest of the New Testament as well.  The order is

the gospel accounts,
the history of the early church,
the letters of Paul

to churches,
to people,

letters by other apostles, and
prophecy.

So, there are a lot of ways the New Testament could have been organized.  They could have organized all the letters according to when they were written rather than by whom and to whom.  Additionally, once John was written, they could have put that first, since its first statement corresponds to the first statement in the first book of the Old Testament.

Whatever the reason, the date of writing does not appear to be the primary consideration in organizing the books of the New Testament.

One possible explanation, however, could have been that Matthew seems to present Jesus specifically as the King of the Jews, while Mark presents Jesus as the Son of Man.  The idea that the gospel was for the Jew first and then also to the Gentile could have been the reason why Matthew was placed first.

I do know that some Jewish people, who do pick up the New Testament, are often shocked to find in the very first verses a link from Jesus to Abraham.  This can shatter some false stereotypes that the New Testament is antisemitic.  In fact, in his book Betrayed, Stan Telchin had this exact reaction.  So, again, that is at least a plausible explanation as to why Matthew is first.


According to Catholicism, when is vandalism not sinful? I understand that destroying property as an unintended side effect of doing some greater good (like saving lives) is not a sin. However, is destroying property not as a side effect to the immediate threat ever allowed? Examples:

Hacking and destroying of neo-nazi or pornographic website,
Tearing down a poster that calls for some atrocities or displays pornography.

This question is asked based on the perspective of Catholicism.  If a more extreme example will aid in explaining the issue from the Catholic perspective, then please substitute in a different example for either of the two I listed.

Added:
I'm also interested in the relation to the law, because in many cases, this behavior could be unlawful, and from my understanding, in most cases breaking a law is a sin (as all authority comes from the God). Yet in those cases, law may protect something evil.

1. A good answer would be an explanation of what makes destroying of the property a sin...

The seventh commendement (You shall not steal) implies the right for every body to private ownship. The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church says :

  Private property and other forms of private ownership of goods assure a person a highly necessary sphere for the exercise of his personal and family autonomy and ought to be considered as an extension of human freedom ... stimulating exercise of responsibility, it constitutes one of the conditions for civil liberty

2. ... and how this logic can be applied to the given examples

A poster may no longer be considered as a personal belonging. Tearing it down could be see as an expression of your opinion, your freedom. The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church gives several definitions of freedom. One of them is:

  freedom must also be expressed as the capacity to refuse what is morally negative, in whatever guise it may be presented, ...

But just before this definition, it states about the exercice of freedom.

  This must take place within a “strong juridical framework”, within the limits imposed by the common good and public order, and, in every case, in a manner characterized by responsibility.

Please note that displaying a poster that calls for some atrocities or displays pornography may be punished by law.

The scene of Jesus with the vendors in the Temple (cf. John 2:14-16) shows that there is not a general rule about the immorality of destroying others's belongings when their use/presence offends. However, whoever destroys the property of others while civil law doesn't condone it may be punished if discovered.

3. What is the source of "good" - is something good because God says so? Or maybe God says what is good ?

This is a huge question that cannot be answered within a few lines. You can have further information by looking for ressources related to the sources of morality.

4. I'm also interested in the relation to the law ...

Law may vary from one contry to another.

5. From my understanding, in most cases breaking a law is a sin (as all authority comes from the God)

Check out this quote of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

  The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." (Mt 22:21) "We must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29)

  .When citizens are under the oppression of a public authority which oversteps its competence, they should still not refuse to give or to do what is objectively demanded of them by the common good; but it is legitimate for them to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens against the abuse of this authority within the limits of the natural law and the Law of the Gospel.


In Christ's time, who possessed the written word? 2000 years ago, written works were extremely valuable. It's not like every Jewish family had their own "family scroll" that they read to their children every night. It's doubtful even that every Rabbi had their own scroll.

Before the printing press, it's known that Christian Monks would spend countless hours copying the pages of the bible by hand, and that those Bibles were often chained to a table in a church and locked shut when not being read.

How were scrolls reproduced? Who kept them? And how did a common person obtain access to them in Christ's time? One final question: Did Christ own a physical copy of the scriptures?

Well, obviously, many of the specifics are simply unknowable, but written texts were obviously kept and transmitted by various religious communities in antiquity. One particularly anachronistic component to your question, however, is the notion that the scriptures or Bible were "a" scroll. You simply couldn't fit several long texts (e.g. the entirety of the Torah) on a single scroll in antiquity. In fact, this is the traditional reason that we give for why the books of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles were split into two parts, namely, that only half of each would reasonably fit on a single scroll.

The oldest material evidence we have for this fact comes from the scrolls found near Qumran (commonly referred ot as the Dead Sea Scrolls). Not a lot is known about the settlement there, but most scholars suspect that it was made up of Essenes, or some other sectarian group. Anyhow, the thing to note is that these folks kept many, many scrolls—biblical and otherwise, but each book was (generally) on its own roll.

This brings me to my final bit: scrolls (and most long-format texts) were expensive to make and to copy. It is reasonable, therefore, to suspect that in most cases biblical scrolls would have been prohibitively expensive for most individuals. More likely Torah instruction happened orally in cases where texts were not available. Plus most people couldn't read, anyway.


What is God's good news before Jesus's death and resurrection? In Mark 1, we learn about both John's baptism of repentance and Jesus's proclamation that "the time has come.  Repent and believe in the good news!"

John's baptism

  And so John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness, preaching a
  baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 5 The whole Judean
  countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him.
  Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.

Jesus's Proclamation

  14 After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming
  the good news of God. 15 “The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of
  God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!”

How would Jews have understood this at the time before Jesus's death?  It seems like the common understanding is that before His death and resurrection, the only sanctification for sin was through particular forms of sacrifice, based on this passage in Hebrews (NIV):

  22 In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with
  blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

So - other than that God being with us and loving us is clearly excellent news - how would this have been understood in Jesus's time before his death and resurrection?

The Good News is that the promised Messiah - God's annointed - has returned. The Kingdom of God was to be established.

When Jesus begins to preach in Luke 4, he overtly references himself as the promised Messiah of Isaiah.

  16 He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read, 17 and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:

  18 “The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
     because he has anointed me
     to proclaim good news to the poor.
  He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
     and recovery of sight for the blind,
  to set the oppressed free,
     19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

The Kingdom would have had connotations of return to power and re-establishment of the "ancient order." The Kingdom announced in Isaiah 40 - 66 would have indicated a new social order, one in which there is equality and goodness of all, and that the throne of David would be re-established.

Luke in particular understood this reversal - the oppressed would no longer be on the bottom, the poor would be rich, etc... Look to Mary's Magnificat (Luke 1:48 - 52) to see this.

To many, the idea was conflated with political liberation from Rome, but the Good News preached was actually just the new social order of Isaiah 40 - 66.

What made Jesus' teaching unique was precisely the fact that Jesus redefined the notion of Messiah as applying personally and not just politically.


What is Young-Earth Creationism, and how is it argued for? What is Young-Earth Creationism, and the Biblical basis for it?

Young Earth Creationism, abbreviated YEC, is the idea that the earth is relatively young (several thousand years old) compared to Old Earth Creationism (OEC) which agree with secular science that currently claims the earth is 4.55 Billion years old.

While there is a lot of good physical evidence for YEC discussed elsewhere the question at hand is what is the Biblical basis for it.

Here is my opinion on the Biblical basis:

If the earth was old that puts death in the world before sin.1
Genesis was as explicit as possible in putting the term day as we mean it without going to the absurd length to have to specify exactly 24 hours.2
Contrary to popular belief the bible does not state that the earth was flooded from rain alone, but instead states that the fountains of the deep broke open AND it rained for 40 days. which is the only way that it could have happened, and if truly global it explains quite a bit about geology.3
In the 10 commandments in Exodus it is explained why the Sabbath is holy: 'In six days did the Lord God create the heavens and earth, and all that is within them and on the seventh day He rested'. Exodus 20:11
2 Peter 3, talks about scoffers in the last days who are willingly ignorant about the flood destroying the whole world. and talks about how the world will be destroyed again in fire (so if you claim the flood was local, then you would have to conclude that God destroying the world in fire at the end will also be local somehow too). It also warns about people twisting the scriptures, which is what it looks to me OEC's do when they try to get millions of years out of "There was evening, there was morning, Day 1"2
Mark 10:6, Jesus himself said 'From the beginning of creation, God made them male and female'.

The bottom line is to get an Old Earth View, you have to change the standard interpretation of much of the scripture and take many words out individually nit picking at what their meaning could be, instead of looking at the passage as a whole. Also the main proponents of OEC such as Hugh Ross, for an example, have come from first from a secular background and tried to reconcile what they already believed with the bible. Look at his bio; he states clearly that he went looking for a religion that fit what he understood to be true about science. Instead of coming to Christ and trying to find out what is truth, they do the opposite; they say, "This is true, now how can we make christianity agree with it?"

1 Romans 5:12 states that death entered the world because of the sin of Adam.  Now some YEC's taken that to an extreme and say that the 2nd law of thermodynamics entered the world at that time, and that's a big stumbling block for OEC's like Hugh Ross. I don't make that claim and don't think the bible makes the claim that entropy = death. In fact in there is allot of chaos in genesis before man shows up. But while some will claim there is no biblical support for the idea that death means anything other than human death, I think it's very clear if you look throughout the bible you see the ideal that man's sin is the cause for animal suffering.

God killed animals right after Adam sinned to cover his nakedness.
God didn't tell Adam he could eat animals before he sinned.
God instituted animal sacrifices because 'without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins'.

2 It's true the Hebrew word YOHM can mean anything from 12 hours to an indeterminate period, but so can our own English word day, but it's rare to mean something other than 24 hours. While there are other Hebrew words that only mean long periods of time that could have been used instead. God says he is not the author of confusion, so why would he say there was evening and morning, day 1(which OEC's claim should mean "the was the dawn of an age, and a close of an age, age 1") when he could have just said this was the first age.

3 as stated in many arguments against a global flood, if it rained for 40 days enough to cover the current topography of earth it would rain so hard that the friction from the water would burn the atmosphere and also the rain would so much force as to brake the ark itself. But instead of saying the rain caused the flood it says he broke open the fountains of the deep, AND it rained.


Can a bishop allow Marriage between cousins? Does a bishop have the extraordinary power to allow marriage between first cousins?  As per canon law 1091 it is not possible.

Please give me a clear answer.

Can a bishop allow Marriage between cousins?

The short answer is yes: first cousins can marry if the diocesan bishop grants an appropriate dispensation.

To understand the question at hand let us start by looking at what Canon Law has to say about "Specific Diriment Impediments" to marriage.

  Can.  1091 §1. In the direct line of consanguinity marriage is invalid between all ancestors and descendants, both legitimate and natural.

  §2. In the collateral line marriage is invalid up to and including the fourth degree.

  §3. The impediment of consanguinity is not multiplied.

  §4. A marriage is never permitted if doubt exists whether the partners are related by consanguinity in any degree of the direct line or in the second degree of the collateral line.

Now let's look at how to interpret Canon 1091.

  Canon 1091: CONSANGUINITY: The impediment arises from a blood relationship, either fullblood
  or half-blood; therefore, its existence does not derive from the marital status of the common
  ancestor. In the direct line, all marriages are invalid; no dispensation is ever granted from
  consanguinity in the second degree of the collateral line [brother and sister] (Canon 1078). In the
  collateral line marriages are invalid to the third degree [aunts or uncles with nephews or nieces] as
  well as to the fourth degree [first cousins]. This impediment is of ecclesiastical law, and the Local
  Ordinary or his delegate can dispense for a sufficient reason; however, if civil legislation will not
  permit such a union, the Local Ordinary will not grant a dispensation (confer Canon 1071, §1, 2/).
  Beyond the fourth degree of the collateral line, no impediment exists. - Manual of Tribunal Marriage Procedures

Canon law relationship chart


Was Barnabas' land ownership as a Levite against Mosaic Law? Acts 4:36-37:

  Thus Joseph who was surnamed by the apostles Barnabas (which means, Son of encouragement), a Levite, a native of Cyprus, sold a field which belonged to him, and brought the money and laid it at the apostles' feet.

How did Barnabas come to own land near Jerusalem that he could sell, if he was a both a Levite and a native of Cyprus?  Levites had no inheritance and were to be supported by the other tribes for their priestly or temple service. Was he in disobedience to the Lord to own the land in the first place, according to Mosaic Law?

I am not sure you are interpreting the law about Levites owning land correctly.

Joshua 10 describes the division of the land between the tribes, but does not assign it to individuals. Verse 14 gives no portion of the land to Levi:

  Only to the tribe of Levi he had given no inheritance; the sacrifices of the Lord God of Israel made by fire are their inheritance, as He said to them.

It is not that individual Levites had no inheritance. The tribe did not have a region of the promised land set aside for them. Instead, they were distributed amongst the cities in other tribes' land.

Consider Numbers 35:1-2:

  In the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho, the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: Command the Israelites to give, from the inheritance that they possess, towns for the Levites to live in; you shall also give to the Levites pasture lands surrounding the towns.

Along with these cities, the Levites were given fields around those cities.

And in Deuteronomy 18:6-8, we see that not only could individual Levites have an inheritance, they could sell it:

  So if a Levite comes from any of your gates, from where he dwells among all Israel, and comes with all the desire of his mind to the place which the Lord chooses, then he may serve in the name of the Lord his God as all his brethren the Levites do, who stand there before the Lord.  They shall have equal portions to eat, besides what comes from the sale of his inheritance

And Nehemiah 13:10:

  I also realized that the portions for the Levites had not been given them; for each of the Levites and the singers who did the work had gone back to his field.

It seems that as least in the time of Nehemiah, Levites could own fields as part of the support offered to them.


What was the difference between the Pharisees and Sadducees? Jesus often encountered "Pharisees" and "Sadducees".  For example,

  34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” (Matthew 22:34-36)

From a Christian perspective, Who were they and how did they differ?

Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and Zealots were the four primary religious/political factions of the time.

Pharisees were keepers of the Law and held the entire (what we would call) Hebrew Bible as the word of YHWH. They emerged from the exile as the dominant faction because they (correctly) connected Israel's abandoning of the Law as the reason for the punishment of exile. As such, they created "fences" to attempt to keep people from even coming close to replicating this behavior and casting Israel into exile and further punishment.

Sadducees were more affluent and were also more sympathetic to the Hellenistic movement. They acquiesced quite a bit to the influence of the prevailing powers (Greece, and then Rome) because they realized it was economically and politically advantageous for them to do so. They also only held the Pentateuch as their authoritative Scriptures.

Essenes held themselves to a higher standard of piety - including voluntary poverty, abstinence, and other forms and degrees of asceticism. Additionally, they lived in a tighter community (Jerusalem had an "Essene Quarter") and may have influenced the early Christian community (of Acts 1-11). Some of them took a more radical approach on this communalism and established the community of Qumran.

Zealots were just that. They believed that change could only be affected in the ruling powers through force, and likely had not real religious leader.