What happens to a rejected grace? When I pray for someone's conversion and God gives him the grace to convert but he/she rejects it. He won't end up converting and constantly is rejecting God's grace. I can see that God was putting these people in situations where the conversion could have happened but they resisted and kept on living their way of life.

Will this grace be assigned to somebody else? Will it be wasted? What is the Roman Catholic teaching on this matter?

For example, when we pray for souls in purgatory God can assign our prayers to different souls if he things the souls who we pray for can't receive it. Does this happen when we pray for people on Earth?

What happens to a rejected grace? What happens to the merits of one's prayers for a person who is not ready to accept it or does not accept? Does God use one's prayer for a different individual?

First of all, we have to look at the subject as best we can. There are several points to be taken into consideration here.

What is grace?

  Grace is the supernatural gift that God, of his free benevolence, bestows on rational creatures for their eternal salvation. The gifts of grace are essentially supernatural. They surpass the being, powers, and claims of created nature, namely sanctifying grace, the infused virtues, the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and actual grace. They are the indispensable means necessary to reach the beatific vision. In a secondary sense, grace also includes such blessings as the miraculous gifts of prophecy or healing, or the preternatural gifts of freedom from concupiscence.

  The essence of grace, properly so called, is its gratuity, since no creature has a right to the beatific vision, and its finality or purpose is to lead one to eternal life. - Catholic Dictionary

Here is what Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., surnamed the Sacred Monster of Thomism has to say on this:

  MEANINGS OF THE WORD “GRACE”

  There are of course three acceptations of this word “grace” even used in human affairs. For grace (χάρις) originally refers to something, which is not due or is freely bestowed; this meaning is very common in both profane and biblical writings. Hence even in purely human matters the term “grace” has a threefold application, as follows:

  The love of benevolence conferring a gift, which is not due; for example, we say: This soldier has the grace of the king.
  The gift itself freely bestowed; thus we say: I grant you this grace.
  Gratitude for a benefit received; thus: I render you thanks for your benefits.

  Moreover, these three significations may be transferred to the supernatural order, whereupon the word grace applies to the following.

  The love of benevolence on the part of God, conferring supernatural, life. This love of God is uncreated grace.
  The supernatural gift of grace itself freely bestowed and ordained to eternal life; this is created grace, of which we are now treating, whether it is interior or exterior, such as the preaching of the gospel.
  Our gratitude to God. - Grace: Commentary on the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas

As Geremia's answer explains to us, the Church has yet to make a decision if efficacious grace can be rejected?

In the seminary, we were taught that when we pray for a soul in purgatory or when a Mass is said for the repose of a soul (in purgatory) and that particular soul is in heaven, God will apply those prayers and merits (of the Mass) to another soul in need.

We might not be able to know for certainty if grace can truly be rejected, but it does seem possible. I would like to give here one example of a possibility that could fit that bill. Perhaps not the best, but it gets the point across. It comes from The Cleaving of Christendom by Warren Carroll, chapter 12, page 626. It contrasts the rejection of faith (as a free gift from God) and the reception of that same gift by others (at the same moment in history).

  The conversion of Mexico was by far the greatest and most complete in all missionary history, and Mexico remains one of most Catholic countries in the world today. And most of that conversion [of nine million souls] took place in the years when Henry VIII was taking England out of the Church. What the Church had lost in the old world, she regained in the new.

Prayer and graces are never in vain, God will see to it that they are used and accorded to and by someone in need, even if that grace is one of final repentance on one's deathbed. We may pray for someone's conversion, while not being able to see the promptings of the Holy Spirit at work in that soul. While we can not know if in fact grace has been rejected or not, keep on praying, you may be awakening a future St Augustine of Hippo!


What did Calvin think about Knox's "Monstrous Regiment"? Scottish Protestant reformer John Knox (1514-1572) is the author of the work of vile misogyny, The first blast of the trumpet against the monstruous regiment of women (1558). In the book, Knox rails against the idea of women having authority over men, particularly in the case of queens. He calls them "weak", "sick", "impotent", "foolish", "mad", "frenetic", "impatient", "feeble", "inconstant", "cruel", "corrupted", and so forth.  Mary I of England was "that cursed Jezebel" and "horrible monster", "bloody tyrant"; Mary of Guise was "that crafty dame". He called for the people to rise up to murder both of them. He also hates "the odious nation of Spaniards", Catholics ("pestilent and detestable"), and frankly quite a lot of other things.

In a comment on an answer to an earlier question, I said that John Calvin (Knox's mentor) disapproved of what Knox had written. On reflection I realize that I don't actually have any evidence for that. I was misremembering a different comment by Calvin where he said "moderate your rigor" to Knox, but that was in the context of tolerating variations in the conduct of public worship (Knox absolutely hated any deviation from his ideas).

What did Calvin actually think about the Monstrous regiment?  - both in terms of the political difficulty it created, and in terms of the actual content (that is, did he agree or disagree with the basic sentiments, independently of the trouble the book caused?).

It seems that your question is a settled part of Church History, judging from David Calhoun's lecture "Blowing the Trumpet: John Knox and the Scottish Reformation" (quoting from the transcript; see the audio recording and the study guide):

  Knox said women should not rule over men. That was a kind of call for revolution. People could read between the lines and realize that what John Knox really wanted was for men in the two countries to rise up and overthrow the women rulers and bring in Protestant rulers. John Knox wrote the book in Geneva. It was an embarrassment to John Calvin. Calvin explained that when Knox came to him with the idea of writing such a book, Calvin strongly discouraged him from doing it. Calvin pointed to Deborah and Huldah, women in the Old Testament who were legitimate rulers. Calvin was also concerned about Knox's approach, because Calvin was very conservative in his view of overthrowing kingdoms. He told the Huguenots in France that it was better to suffer than to create anarchy and revolution. Calvin did not open much of a door for any kind of revolution. John Knox did open such a door in his First Blast of the Trumpet for revolution in Scotland and elsewhere.


How do one know that the Bible is absolutely true and is not a "make believe" fiction? From the agnostic/skeptic side of view not my side because I am a Catholic: there is the possibility of the Bible fulfilled prophecies being made up in the new testament to make it match up with the old testament prophecies and Bible writers using existing historical names and places to write a make-believe story in order to keep people good and to point to archaeology as evidence and to make it look like it really happened and Bible reliability just a coincidence of many copies of the handwritten Bible. How would one refute these claims? How do one know that the Bible is absolutely true and is not a "make believe" fiction, now off course one may say faith, but one can have faith in the Quran that it is true just as one has faith in the Bible, but that doesn't mean what it says is true. So how do you determine that the Bible is in fact indeed true?

The faith the bible talks about is different than a mere conjecture on a given set of factoids. The faith is specified in the bible, therefore it is not the same as a belief in the quran as a source of truths.

People who deny the archaeological evidence for the accuracy of the bible have left the realm of logical reasoning and sound argumentation for one reason or another. It may not be a logical step at that point to argue further.

The archaeological evidence for the bible is rich and beyond the sort of forgeries and fudgeries some want to lead you to believe. Of course, as with anything, if you want to use it as an argument, you first have to learn it and the associated discussion.

However, the crux of the matter lies in the fact that many (so-called) skeptics do not allow for the existence of a spiritual plane besides the natural. Regardless how illogical that position is, they will always come back to that, if not consciously then subconsciously.

The answer then would be to ask the question: how do you know that the supernatural (the spiritual) does not exist?

Another point of discussion is the question whether knowledge is even possible without a spiritual plane. What is knowledge? Let the skeptic define the term and see if they can explain what they are talking about.


Christmas Tree Angel holding bread in one hand and coal in the other? A friend of mine grew up in England and she recounted a pious Christmas tradition they had in England when she was a little girl while decorating their Christmas Trees. This tradition was in use where she lived in the 1950s.

On Christmas Eve, when people were decorating their Christmas Trees, they would place an angel on top of the tree. The angel decoration or tree topper was a little unique. The angel had bread in one hand and coal in the other. The symbolism was of Christian origin. It symbolized our need to always remember the poor and destitute at Christmas time: the poor needed bread to eat and coal to burn in order to keep warm.

Does anyone know where I can find some information about this Angel Christmas Tree topper tradition?

This is an interesting question.  I’d wager that most readers initially make a contrast between the bread and coal in the angel’s hands as representing rewards for good and evil.  We know about the bread of the Covenant at the Last Supper.  And no doubt most of us have heard about getting a lump of coal or two in your stocking if you were a bad boy or girl.  Alternatively, as the OP stated, the two items may also represent a tradition between the well-to-do (bread) and the poor (coal).

There is a another historic symbolism of the bread and coal that is somewhat different.  The two items of bread and coal may essentially represent the same singular idea; that is, one of redemption.

CHRISTMAS TREE

The origins of Christmas trees are widely known and are not important to the question.  As to an angel tree topper, its first use apparently sources to the United Kingdom’s Victorian Era from about 1837 to 1901.

  The Illustrated London News published a picture of Queen Victoria, Prince Albert, and their family around a Christmas tree topped with an angel, and by its influence the Christmas angel became the most common tree-topper.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree-topper

If you enlarge the picture of the angel on top, you find it dressed in red and white.  It appears to hold somethings in its hand and one could easily hazard a guess that it is bread (right) and coal (left).

Why an angel in the first place?  The idea is consistently one of a herald, a messenger.  What is the message?  The answer, the symbolism is in the bread and coal.

When did the angel first appear with two items in its hands?  The answer is more of a mystery, but one that is inferred from when it first appeared.

HEAVEN or HELL

Before looking at the bread and coal as the same metaphor, there are traditions that the two are very different states of mankind or even of Christians!  Keep in mind that apparently the angelic tree topper appeared about the same times as our sources.

Charles Spurgeon an English preacher (1834-1892) contrasts a type of bread and coal as in the same house, though different implications.

  I believe that most of God's children sometimes get down in the dumps. There is a coal cellar to God's house as well as a banqueting hall and, although I should like to always live in the banqueting hall, I have many a time been down in the coal cel-lar—and I have learned more, there, than I have learned upstairs!
  Spurgeon, Sermons 45

This idea of partaking of either bread (good) or coals (bad) may be traceable far back in time to Pseudo-Dionysius circa CE 600.

  This sacrifice [of Christ’s death], here celebrated, we commemorate to Thee, O Lord, and the sufferings which Thou didst endure on the Cross for us. Be propitious, O Good, and Lover of men, in that hour full, of fear and trembling, to this congregation of those adoring Thee, and to all sons of the holy Church, bought by Thy precious blood. May coals of fire be kept from those who are tinged with Thy blood, and sealed by Thy sacraments in Thy holy Name, as formerly the Babylonian flame from the youths of the house of Hanania;
  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/dionysius/works.i.v.ii.html

It is also interesting that Parliamentary Papers from that Victorian time period mentions tickets issued to the poor who could redeem them for both bread and coal.  With this, we find that the two items are essential symbols of life.  This too may have influenced our traditions.  See page 850.
https://books.google.com/books?id=mMNDAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA850&lpg=PA850&dq

Lastly, in keeping with the idea that the two items represent symbols for good, we may cite from the bible where Elijah is running from Jezebel.

  And as he lay and slept under a juniper tree, behold, then an angel touched him, and said unto him, Arise and eat. And he looked, and, behold, there was a cake baken on the coals, and a cruse of water at his head. And he did eat and drink, and laid him down again.
  1Kings 19:5-6

In this story we have the traditional evergreen, the angel, bread (cake) and coals.

REDEMPTION

In all of these traditions, the one constant is the angel heralding and holding or providing two items.  Were the items it held a contrast of bread for good and coal for bad or were they symbols of the same reality; that is, bread and coal as necessities for life?

The angel of course represents the heralding angel.  Hark, the herald angel sings, glory to the newborn king.  The bread of heaven had come to earth.

  And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.
  Luke 2:10-12

  For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
  John 6:33

Hark Emmanuel, God with us.  But hark too our reaction.  Mine lips are deceitful and evil, I am a sinner, how can I receive this gift of life?  Religious traditions answer in different ways from universal salvation to working for salvation.  Again, this is unimportant to the question.  For this angel tradition though, there is only one answer.  The angel offers bread and uses the coal to one who acknowledges his/her sins.

  Then said I [the prophet Isaiah], Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts.  Then flew one of the seraphims unto me, having a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar: And he laid it upon my mouth, and said, Lo, this hath touched thy lips; and thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin purged.
  Isa. 6:5-7

We have seen angel toppers clothed in either white or red to explain that symbolism.  Keep in mind that these were Protestant preachers.  So although he does not tie this with an angel topper necessarily, Scottish preacher George Adam Smith (1856-1942) will put it, bread represents redemption, but so too the coal as the means.

  [Isaiah’s vision] for so simple a process of atonement leaves out the most characteristic details of the Jewish ritual of sacrifice, while it anticipates in an unmistakeable manner the essence of the Christian sacrament. In a scene of expiation laid under the old covenant, we are struck by the absence of oblation or sacrificial act on the part of the sinner himself. There is here no victim slain, no blood sprinkled; an altar is only parenthetically suggested, and even then in its simplest form, of a hearth on which the Divine fire is continually burning. The glowing stone, not live coal as in the English version, was no part of the temple furniture, but the ordinary means of conveying heat or applying fire in the various purposes of household life.
  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/smith_ga/expositorisa1.v.iv.html

The stone/coal was applied, not something taken or achieved.

CONCLUSION

With these things in mind from the same period, we thus find traces of the different ongoing traditions of an angelic tree topper clothed in white or red or both who holds bread in one hand and coal in the other.

Those traditions offer different understandings that range from contrasting bread for good and coal for bad to finding both bread and coal as symbols of good or the necessity of life.  Lastly, we find the heralding angel who announces Christ the bread of life and the coal of simple application.  For this tradition, the angel with bread and coal is not a contrast of people or symbols, but a compliment of Christian reality foreshadowed and fulfilled.


What is the Catholic interpretation of Sirach 42:14? "Better is the wickedness of a man than a woman who does good; and it is a woman who brings shame and disgrace." - Sirach (or Ecclesiasticus) 42:14, RSV.

The Douay Challoner version renders Ecclesiasticus 42:14 as:

  For better is the iniquity of a man, than a woman doing a good turn, and a woman bringing shame and reproach.

The Catholic Haydock Commentary says regarding this verse:

  Better, &c. That is, there is, commonly speaking, less danger to be apprehended to the soul from the churlishness, or injuries we receive from men, than from the flattering favours and familiarity of women. (Challoner) --- Josephus (contra Apion ii.) attributes this sentence to Moses, and prefers the worst man to the best woman, as Euripides does in Clement. (Strom. iv.) (Calmet) --- But this is ridiculous. --- Reproach. This explains what sort of good the woman aforesaid has done; she had fostered the passions of men, and brought them to shame, which all the malevolence of an enemy could not have done. (Haydock) --- The company of women is therefore more dangerous, chap. ix. (Worthington)


Why must the hypostatic union be viewed as taking place at Jesus' conception? What are the reasons why Trinitarian orthodoxy holds that the Word had to make his hypostatic union with the man Jesus Christ at the point of his conception in Mary's womb rather than later at his baptism by John the Baptist?   Is the view simply that the Word was incapable of uniting with a full-grown man?

The reason I'm asking is I don't see anything in John 1:14's "the word became flesh" that specifies when that took place.  From a purely scriptural point of view, I don't see that it matters whether it took place at the conception or the baptism, that the word united with Jesus. But I'm sure the framers of Trinitarian orthodoxy must have had some reasons for placing it at the conception.

The doctrine of the Trinity says that God is three persons in one being. One of those persons, the second person of the Trinity, took on flesh and became a human, the man Jesus.

If I understand what you're suggesting, you would run into one of these two problems:

Because the pre-baptism Jesus was a person, the hypostatic union would be two people, a heresy called Nestorianism. This is a very complicated topic, so I'll quote from a blog I found that explains some of the problems much better than I could:

  When pressed the Nestorian will say that Jesus is both God and man but what he means by this is that Jesus is one person and God is another person and two persons reside in the same human body. In other words, Jesus is not really God at all. God is somehow in Jesus but not really Jesus. Therefore, the logical and rational conclusion to be drawn is that Jesus is not fully God and it would therefore be idolatry to worship Jesus.  ...  The Bible never speaks of Jesus as if He were two persons.  Rather the Bible speaks of Jesus as though He were one individual man who is as fully human as anyone else.  He thinks, feels, eats, acts, lives and dies just as any other human person would.  But Jesus is more than a human person.  He is also a divine person and this person is one person being both divine and human at one and the same time.  The other error of Nestorianism is that it denies that the Son of God, the Word, became flesh.  ...  The Nestorian thinks he has solved the problem of the apparent contradiction of Jesus being one person who is both fully God and fully human.  But the Nestorian only thinks he has solved the "apparent" problem which is no real problem at all.  And even more than that the Nestorian position divides Christ into two persons which are not united at all.  (by Charlie J. Ray, emphasis added)

If the Word is a different person than the human Jesus then really the whole idea of the incarnation is lost.
Something that is not God became God. This is very similar to the heresy called Adoptionism, as some people who believe that say that Jesus was adopted as God's son and became divine. This goes against God's singular uniqueness of being the eternal God. This is much less controversial (I think the only 'Christian' group which says that the non-divine can become divine is the LDS) so I'll leave it there.


Are there theological explanations for why God chose the Church to preach the gospel instead of more effective and efficient alternatives? If the end goal is the preaching of the gospel to every human on the planet, then it would not be hard to come up with very efficient and effective methods to do so. For example, God could send hundreds of millions of angels to preach the gospel around the world, and in a matter of minutes every person would be evangelized. Or God could give dreams and visions to every person simultaneously revealing the truth of the gospel, causing unprecedented large scale conversions all over the globe (by the way, there is anecdotal evidence that this appears to be happening to Muslims to some degree). And likewise, one could creatively think of myriads of other possible ways in which the gospel could've been preached sooner, faster or more effectively. Yet, God chose to use human beings, the Church, to carry out the great commission. Why?
I don't want this question to be opinion-based, so I would prefer answers that draw on reputable sources pertaining to the subject matter, e.g., the works of reputable theologians. Alternatively, if a denomination has an official denominational answer to the question, I would be interested in knowing that too.

Your question could be expanded: why did God choose to make the world at all?
The implication of asking your question is that the ultimate thing God is aiming for is efficiency. This is not the case.
God created the universe for his own glory. He has his ways of doing things which are not our ways of doing things:

As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. (Isaiah 55:9)

However, I think we do have some clues as to why God chooses to make the gospel known through frail and flawed human beings rather than in a more 'efficient' way.
2 Corinthians 4:7, "But we have this treasure in jars of clay to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us." If you think of us as the 'jars of clay', then the fact that something supernatural happens (i.e. people are converted) by the preaching of the gospel shows that it is God's power at work.
Similarly in 2 Corinthians 12:9, "But he said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.’ Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me."
When God's work is accomplished not only despite our weakness but through our weakness, then it shows it can only be his power and not ours.
So I would answer your question, God chooses to make himself known and evangelise the nations through the work of human beings, because it brings more glory to himself in his power being made manifest in weakness.


Why did Saul's sins lead to his rejection as King of Israel, but David's sins did not cost him his crown? I Samuel 15;10-12 tells us "The word of the Lord came to Samuel, saying, 'I greatly regret that I have set up Saul as King, for he has turned back from following Me, and has not performed my commandments'"

The New Testament tells us in Romans 11:29 that the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable. Is that a privilege only given to those under the New Covenant?

King David sinned by committing adultery and murder, yet it didn't cost him his crown; Saul's sin was to offer a sacrifice when it wasn't his place to, a sin of presumption. Was this a greater sin?

The difference between Saul and David was that one offered insincere repentance while the other expressed true repentance. In David's case, we have Psalm 51 as a window into his heart.

It is instructive to look at other Biblical leaders who sinned, and what happened afterwards.

Moses struck the rock in anger, and his punishment was that he would not live to enter the Promised Land. Moses accepted God's punishment and continued to serve. Though he did not enter the land, God's presence remained with him, and that was more precious to Moses than any material reward, showing his heart. See Exodus 33:

  14 The Lord replied, “My Presence will go with you, and I will give
  you rest.”

  15 Then Moses said to him, “If your Presence does not go with us, do
  not send us up from here. 16 How will anyone know that you are pleased
  with me and with your people unless you go with us? What else will
  distinguish me and your people from all the other people on the face
  of the earth?”

  17 And the Lord said to Moses, “I will do the very thing you have
  asked, because I am pleased with you and I know you by name.”

  18 Then Moses said, “Now show me your glory.”

Hezekiah, in pride, showed the emissary of Babylon the treasury of Judah. God pronounced judgment against him and told him that he would die. Hezekiah repented, and God mercifully extended his life fifteen years, but years later, all that wealth was plundered by foreign armies.
The last King before the Exile was Jehoiachin. Here is what Jeremiah had to say about him:

  24 “As surely as I live,” declares the Lord, “even if you,
  Jehoiachin son of Jehoiakim king of Judah, were a signet ring on my
  right hand, I would still pull you off. 25 I will deliver you into the
  hands of those who want to kill you, those you fear—Nebuchadnezzar
  king of Babylon and the Babylonians.[d] 26 I will hurl you and the
  mother who gave you birth into another country, where neither of you
  was born, and there you both will die. 27 You will never come back to
  the land you long to return to.”

  28 Is this man Jehoiachin a despised, broken pot,
      an object no one wants? Why will he and his children be hurled out,
      cast into a land they do not know? 29 O land, land, land,
      hear the word of the Lord! 30 This is what the Lord says: “Record this man as if childless,
      a man who will not prosper in his lifetime, for none of his offspring will prosper,
      none will sit on the throne of David
      or rule anymore in Judah.”

But what happened to this king? He did go into exile, but while there, he humbled himself before God and found favor in the court of the king of Babylon and his life was extended. He did have children, and though none sat on the throne, one descendant did become governor over Judah. This is what Haggai has to say about that man, Zerubbabel:

  20 The word of the Lord came to Haggai a second time on the
  twenty-fourth day of the month: 21 “Tell Zerubbabel governor of Judah
  that I am going to shake the heavens and the earth. 22 I will overturn
  royal thrones and shatter the power of the foreign kingdoms. I will
  overthrow chariots and their drivers; horses and their riders will
  fall, each by the sword of his brother.

  23 “‘On that day,’ declares the Lord Almighty, ‘I will take you, my
  servant Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel,’ declares the Lord, ‘and I will
  make you like my signet ring, for I have chosen you,’ declares the
  Lord Almighty.”

Numbered among his later descendants was Jesus Christ, the eternal king.

The pattern is that God's anger burns against a fallen leader and He pronounces a severe judgment, but if that leader's repentance is sincere, God walks back or delays part of the punishment. There is no guarantee that God's mercy will include retaining the title of kingship, as His purposes vary.

In Saul's case, what would true repentance have meant? Saul would have to acknowledge David as King and cede the throne willingly. That he would not do.

For a longer argument that defends the proposition that Saul's repentance was insincere, see https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/a-false-repentance/

This article refers to arguments made by Matthew Henry in his commentary, here summarized:

But Matthew Henry writes that “it is too evident that he only acts the part of a penitent, and is not one indeed.” To support his case, Henry notes, commenting on 1 Samuel 15:24-29:

Wrong audience. Saul makes his confession to Samuel only. He admits that he “ ‘transgressed the commandment of the Lord and [Samuel’s] words,’ ” but he asks only Samuel’s pardon, and that is not sufficient. He does not seem to grasp that Samuel was speaking for God, that his words were God’s.
Excuses. Saul excuses his fault, saying he feared the people and listened to them. But Henry notes that he never shrank before the people before.
Saving face. Saul is most interested in saving face. He asks Samuel to participate with him in a thanksgiving service and to honor him before the elders. He wants no one to know that God has rejected him as king.

The article goes on to show that by his words, Saul thought of God as Samuel's God, not his own, which is telling. He did not have a personal relationship.


How do believers in Jesus' deity explain that Jesus is never claimed to be God/divine in the Old Roman Creed and the Didache? In an answer to a previous question of mine, a user argued against the historicity of the belief in the divinity of Jesus in the early stages of Christianity, by pointing out the fact that Jesus is never claimed to be God in two very important early documents that record what early Christians believed at the time, namely, the Old Roman Creed and the Didache. Below an extract from the answer:

[...] Hence, the concepts of pre-existence and the incarnation were unknown to the early Christians.
What is the proof? Where is any mention of the divinity of Christ noticeably absent? Let's read:

The Div. Trinity, p. 150

"… even the Didache, or “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,” the oldest literary monument of Christian antiquity outside of the New Testament canon … contains no formal profession of faith in the Divinity of Jesus Christ and the Atonement."(The Divine Trinity. A Dogmatic Treatise by Pohle, Joseph, Rt. Rev. Msgr., PH.D., D.D., edited by Arthur Preuss, B. Herder Book Co., © 1911.)

Where is any mention of the divinity of Christ noticeably absent? According to Pohle, "the Didache". What is the Didache? According to Pohle, "the oldest literary monument of Christian antiquity outside of the New Testament canon". Many scholars hold that it was written sometime during the First Century.
Hence, even passages like, "I am My Father are one," (John 10:30) would not have been interpreted at the time as referring to "the Divinity of Jesus Christ".
What is the proof that the concept of preëxistence was also unknown to the early Christians? Where is any mention of the preëxistent Christ noticeably absent? Let's read:

The Philo. of the Ch. Fathers, p. 190

"In contradistinction to these two types of works, in which there is either a specific mention of a preëxistent Christ or an allusion to it, there is the Old Roman or the so-called Apostles’ Creed (ca. 100), which follows the language of Matthew and Luke and makes no mention of the preëxistent Christ."(The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, Wolfson, Harry Austryn. Volume 1: Faith, Trinity, Incarnation. 2nd rev. ed. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1964.)

Where is any mention of the preëxistent Christ noticeably absent? According to Wolfson, "the Old Roman or the so-called Apostles' Creed". When was this written? According to Wolfson, "ca. 100". This was also around the time when the last of the Apostles passed away.

The same argument is eloquently restated by one of the commenters (emphasis mine):

[...] The Old Roman Creed and Didache are the 2 very early 'dogs that didn't bark'. If people thought Jesus was God, that would be really important and they would say so. Not saying it is tantamount to denying it in those contexts. Same with John 20:31. If John is really intending to claim Jesus is God with Thomas' exclamation, why doesn't he say so in his takeaway summary? You think that would be important! So not saying it is contextual evidence that 20:28 isn't meant to be a claim that Jesus is God. Add in John 17:3 and John 20:17

Question: How do Trinitarians explain that Jesus is never claimed to be God in the Old Roman Creed and the Didache? Is the absence of evidence truly evidence of absence in this case?

Why do I need to explain the reason Jesus Christ is not mentioned or noted as God in the "Roman Creed" and the Didache?
ONE is arguing from silence any time you point to specific data that is not present. In this case, Jesus is not mentioned as God in these two documents. A rational inquiry would seek to understand the data (the words) that ARE present.
It's like asking (and this is an actual example that was ask of me). "Why is it in the book of Acts no one mentions that Jesus Christ is God?" I said to the person, "You believe the Bible is the word of God right?" "He said yes." Well why don't you accept all the other places where Jesus is clearly identified as God?
So what was the purpose of the Didache in the early church? "The Didache is an early handbook of an anonymous Christian community, likely written before some of the New Testament books were written. It spells out a way of life for Jesus-followers that includes instruction on how to treat one another, how to practice the Eucharist, and how to take in wandering prophets."
Basically, the Didache is a hand book for how to treat one another, practice the Eucharist and take in wandering prophets. What about the "Roman Creed?"
"“Old Roman Creed,” or “Romanum,” is the scholarly name for the earlier and shorter form of the Apostles’ Creed as we have it in its original Greek (with probably also a simultaneous Latin edition) in Marcellus (d. ca. 374) and Rufinus (ca. 345–411) and three MSS from the early Middle Ages. It was evidently the baptismal creed of the early Roman church (Baptism). The baptismal questions that have come down to us from Hippolytus (d. ca. 236) at the beginning of the third century are an almost exact prototype of this creed."
It says right there, "It was evidently the baptismal creed of the early Roman church (Baptism). Remember I said to "seek to understand the data (the words) that are present."
In conclusion, it was "ALREADY" assumed that Jesus Christ was God before the Creeds were written. As Christianity grew various heresies would arise. The Nicene Creed was adopted to resolve the Arian controversy, whose leader, Arius.
He believed the following. "Arius taught that Jesus Christ was divine/holy and was sent to earth for the salvation of mankind but that Jesus Christ was not equal to God the Father (infinite, primordial origin) in rank and that God the Father and the Son of God were not equal to the Holy Spirit." Today's Arians include the JW, Unitarians and other groups that deny the deity of Jesus Christ.
As a side note, the Bible itself has creeds and one of them was written by the Apostle Paul at 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.


Why did G.K. Chesterton convert to Catholicism? G.K. Chesterton is one of my favorite authors. On a lot of subjects, his way of looking at things really astonishes me. He can still show things in a fresh perspective, though his books are about a hundred years old.

In his later writings, he quite strongly scoffs at Protestants at times. This is disturbing, as I haven't quite figured why. I probably would find information about his conversion in some of his books, but frankly there's a lot to read. And with none of his books available where I live, it's also troublesome to get them -- call me old-fashioned, but I only read books on paper.

I'd like to get an overview of the reasons G.K. left the Anglican church for the Catholic, possibly along with some further reading recommendations.

This question was partly inspired by Why didn't C.S. Lewis convert to Catholicism? I've wondered about G.K.'s conversion for some time. I haven't dared ask about it here before, as I've been afraid it would be off-topic.

Chesterton probably wrote more than anyone ever so I'm sure he can tell you in his own words why he converted from Atheism to Anglicanism and from Anglicanism to Catholicism.

See: Catholic Church and Conversion and Why I am A Catholic and The God With the Golden Key

As an avid reader of Chesterton, I'm often perplexed at how much love he gives to Catholics even before he became one himself.  He converted to Catholicism in 1922 and only spent 14 years on earth as a Catholic. But starting in 1908 with The Man who was Thursday the heroes of his books and stories have been predominantly Catholics (Father Brown, Gabriel Syme, Ian Maclan).

When reading Orthodoxy, he makes an incredible defense of Catholicism; he defends priests and Catholic doctrine.

  the view that priests darken and embitter the world. I look at the world and simply discover that they don't. Those countries in Europe which are still influenced by priests, are exactly the countries where there is still singing and dancing and coloured dresses and art in the open-air. Catholic doctrine and discipline may be walls; but they are the walls of a playground.

If he wasn't talking about the same Catholic Church which he would convert to eighteen years later at the time, I sure as heck couldn't pick up on it.

Books to read with religion in it:

Everlasting Man

About Jesus, I read it a while ago, don't remember much
Orthodoxy

Chesterton's account of discovering that the religion he set out to found was in fact orthodoxy
The Ball and the Cross

A novel with an atheist and a catholic looking for a place to kill each other.


What is saving faith? A common soteriological view among Evangelical Christians (such as myself) is that we are saved by grace, through faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9).  However, this belief is usually accompanied by a belief that the inevitable effect of salvation is a life that bears fruit, and gradually conforms to Christ (sanctification).

1 John 3:9 (NIV)
9 No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God.
Matthew 7:18 (NIV)
18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.
James 2:17-19 (NIV)
17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”
   Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. 19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
James 2:24 (NIV)
24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.

It seems clear, especially from James, that genuine saving faith is accompanied by works.  Of course, since we are not saved by works, we conclude that these works are the fruit of our salvation, and not the cause of it.  In other words, we are first saved by grace through our genuine saving faith, and works result.
So it seems that it is possible to have a faith that is non-genuine, or non-saving, and thus does not lead to the bearing of fruit.  My question centers around what the difference between these two types of faith is.
I'm interested in non-Calvinist viewpoints, because I believe that I understand the Calvinist one.
I think a Calvinist's answer to this problem would be that it is God who initiates the salvation process in the elect, and saving faith is the result.  Non-Calvinists would hold that God initiates the salvation process for everyone and draws all men to him, but we must choose Him.  So it is in the non-Calvinist viewpoint that the question arises: If there is such thing as a non-saving faith, or non-genuine "choosing", what characterizes saving faith?

I think the short answer that's easiest to give to another person is that if you really believe the message the Christ brought to mankind, it will change you, and that change will show in your actions. Not that you must do change your behavior to attain salvation, but that coming to believe what saves us by faith cannot but change your behavior.

By contrast, it is very easy to say that one believes something, whether or not it is true. The profession of belief is important, but when one declares a belief and that belief is not reflected in their behavior, it is suspect.

Perhaps I'm arguing semantics here, but I think it's meaningful that James says "You say you believe there is one God," as opposed to, say, "You say you believe Jesus Christ is the Messiah who died for your sins." I think James is pointing out that simply believing in the existence of God is a baseline, not the endpoint of faith. If that's the case, then such a belief isn't nearly as formative of behavior as belief that one is a sinner who can be forgiven. James seems to be saying faith should manifest action because real faith is in something transforming.


When did we stop practicing Exodus 35:2 Exodus 35:2 NIV

  For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your
  holy day, a day of sabbath rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on
  it is to be put to death.

I do not see anywhere in the New Testament that we can work on the sabbath day.  Therefore, when did this practice stop?

When?

Acts 15 famously records what parts of the Jewish law is considered binding on non-Jewish Christians:

  28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”

One will note that the Sabbath day laws are not part of this.  As such, the direct answer to your question is thus:  At the Council of Jerusalem, c. 50 AD.  Over the course of the first few centuries, Gentile Jews (not subject to the Sabbath laws) came to outnumber Jewish ones, establishing the custom for all.

Why?

The Why, of course, stems from Jesus' example and teaching. Understanding Do we have to obey the laws of the bible? If so, what laws? is key to this - and the summary is as follows:

In Mark 2, Jesus was asked precisely this question - Why do your disciples "work" on the Sabbath.  The text reads:

  23 One Sabbath he was going through the grainfields, and as they made their way, his disciples began to pluck heads of grain. 24 And the Pharisees were saying to him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” 25 And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him: 26 how he entered the house of God, in the time of[d] Abiathar the high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?” 27 And he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28 So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.”

His answer, that the Sabbath was actually made for man - to be a rest, and a joy - illustrates the "point" that the law is there to help, not to hurt. For example, in Luke 14 it says:

  14 One Sabbath, when he went to dine at the house of a ruler of the Pharisees, they were watching him carefully. 2 And behold, there was a man before him who had dropsy. 3 And Jesus responded to the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath, or not?” 4 But they remained silent. Then he took him and healed him and sent him away. 5 And he said to them, “Which of you, having a son[a] or an ox that has fallen into a well on a Sabbath day, will not immediately pull him out?” 6 And they could not reply to these things.

As a matter of course, the New Testament is pretty clear that for Jesus "rules" are less important than relationships.  The concept of grace is fairly central to most Christian understanding of how "right action" before God is to be considered.  At the risk of sounding antinomian, Christians who rely on grace do not see the "law" as the point, but rather the means.  As such, working on the Sabbath is not a "most important thing" when it comes to living life.

(Oh, and of course as Seventh Day Adventists would point out, the Sabbath is Saturday anyway.)


How many authors wrote the Old and New Testament? I know how many people wrote the Bible, that is, around 40. But what percent of that is Old Testament and what percent is New?

Note: I know I could spend half an hour looking through the lists to split them up but 1. Since this is not quickly answered anywhere, let's make it easier for people who want to know, and 2. Maybe someone here will know off the top of their head.

I think it’s like this: 32 Old Testament and 8 New Testament

old testament

1   Moses
    2   Joshua
    3   Samuel
    4   Ezra
    5   Jeremiah
    6   Nehemiah
    7   Mordecai
    8   Author of Job
    9   Sons of Korah
    10  Asaph
    11  Heman
    12  Ethan
    13  Hezekiah
    14  David
    15  Solomon
    16  Agur
    17  Lemuel
    18  Isaiah
    19  Ezekiel
    20  Daniel
    21  Hosea
    22  Joel
    23  Amos
    24  Obadiah
    25  Jonah
    26  Micah
    27  Nahum
    28  Habakkuk
    29  Zephaniah
    30  Haggai
    31  Zechariah
    32  Malachi

New Testament

1   Matthew
    2   John
    3   Mark
    4   Luke
    5   Paul
    6   James
    7   Peter
    8   Jude


Do Orthodox believe the eternal fire is related to the uncreated light? I have been reading Welcome to the Orthodox Church by Frederica Mathewes-Green. She points out that, at the time of the writing of Scripture, artificial lighting hadn't been invented and therefore any conception of light that the church had was inevitably related to fire (eg the sun and actual fires) so describing God as light was a great way to describe something wonderful to some and terrible to others.

She also mentions (unless I'm mistaken) that Orthodox believe all beings will return to God's presence sometime in the future but that, like fire, it will be a warmth and a joy to those who respect it properly but painful and unbearable to those who don't.

Do Orthodox believe the eternal fire is the same as the uncreated light? Is there even any association?

According to the Orthodox saints, the “fire” that will consume sinners at the coming of God's kingdom is the same “fire” that'll shine with splendor in the saints. It is the “fire” of God’s love; the “fire” of God Himself who is Love.

“For our God is a consuming fire” (Hebrews 12:29) who “dwells in unapproachable light.” (I Timothy 6:16).

For those who love God and who love all creation in Him, the “consuming fire” of God will be radiant bliss and unspeakable delight. For those who do not love God, and who do not love at all, this same consuming fire will be the cause of their “weeping” and their “gnashing of teeth.”

According to Orthodoxy, God does not punish man by some material fire or physical torment. God simply reveals Himself in the risen Lord Jesus in such a glorious way that no man can fail to behold His glory. It is the presence of God’s splendid glory and love that is the scourge of those who reject its radiant power and light.

NOTES

http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/spirituality/the-kingdom-of-heaven/heaven-and-hell

https://orthocath.wordpress.com/2010/09/16/hell-and-gods-love-an-orthodox-view/

http://stgeorgegoc.org/pastors-corner/fr-ricks-sermons/the-fire-of-god


Who are the Nicholaitans Who are the Nicholaitans mentioned in the Book of Revelation, and what are the works Jesus and the believers in Ephesus hate?

Nicolas was a proselyte of Antioch. Irenaeus [130-202 A.D.] was of the opinion that he was the founder of the Nicolaitans.

  Acts_6:5  And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:

The following is extracted from Wikipedia.

  Several of the early church fathers mentioned this group, including Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Epiphanius, and Theodoret, stating that deacon Nicolas was the author of the heresy and sect.
  Irenaeus in Adversus Haereses III. xi. 1; I. xxvi. 3 holds that the Gospel of John was written to counter the teachings of Cerinthus, which he holds was spread by the Nicolaitans. But when Irenaeus focuses on them later, he only presents them as the Book of Revelation did, with no explanation how they can be held to have the doctrines of Cerinthius.
  "The Nicolaitanes are the followers of that Nicolas who was one of the seven first ordained to the diaconate by the apostles. They lead lives of unrestrained indulgence. The character of these men is very plainly pointed out in the Apocalypse of John, [when they are represented] as teaching that it is a matter of indifference to practice adultery and to eat things sacrificed to idols."— Irenaeus, Adversus haereses, i. 26, §3

  Hippolytus of Rome shared the opinion that Nicolas became a heresiarch (in Refutation of All Heresies vii. 24).
  In other writings of the early Church, this connection is disputed and the Nicolaitans are said to be "falsely so called" (ψευδώνυμοι). Clement of Alexandria put forward a defense of Nicolas (in Stromata ii. 20, iii. 4) which Eusebius accepts and repeats (in Historia Ecclesiastica iii. 29).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaism


What did St. Theresa of Àvila mean by the "Prayer of Recollection"? From The Way of Perfection, chapter 28

It is a prayer that brings with it many blessings. This prayer is called "recollection," because the soul collects its faculties together and enters within itself to be with its God. And its divine Master comes more quickly to teach it... those who by such a method can enclose themselves within this little Heaven of our soul, where the Maker of Heaven and Earth is present, and grow accustomed to refusing to be where the exterior senses in their distraction have gone or look in that direction should believe they are following an excellent path and that they will not fail to drink water from the fount; for they will journey far in a short time.

The bolded part is the subject of the question.

St. Teresa explains it very well, but see Juan G. Arintero, O.P., Mystical Evolution ch. 4:

[Prayer of recollection is] an infused type of prayer and is far superior to the prayer which is acquired by our own efforts and diligence. Human industry is powerless to attain it; God gives it when He wishes and as He wishes. Yet we should not on that account refrain from disposing ourselves to receive it and we should not harden our hearts when privileged to hear the divine invitation. For the soul makes more progress and is more illumined during a single moment of that type of prayer than during entire years spent in profound and prolonged considerations.


What innovations in ethics occurred within Christendom during the 9th Century? I am looking for any noteworthy developments, formulations, or codifications of ethics that occurred between 770 and 890 AD in any country or empire that was nominally Christian. If the answer relates to Charlemagne, even better. Who were the theologians, legal scholars, noblemen, rulers, or clergy that put forth these ideas or enacted them in law or custom?

If you know of several, which would you say had the longest lasting influence?

The ideas need not be specifically related to Christian theology; they only need to be informed by such a worldview. In a different epoch, an answer might include the Code of Justinian or the Magna Carta.

Research note:

I just came across a wonderful resource: https://historyofphilosophy.net/
It has podcasts from Kings College in London on a wide range of topics, including several about the Carolingian Renaissance and John Scotus Eriugna.

What innovations in ethics occurred within Christendom during the 9th Century?

To start with, Charlemagne banned work on Sundays in 789.

  In the West, Emperor Charlemagne in 789 banned work on Sunday as a violation of the third commandment of God. In 1234, under Pope Gregory ІХ, the law of Sunday rest became a universal practice in the Latin Church. - The History of Sunday Observance

Charlemagne once elevated to the dignity of Holy Roman Emperor, imposed Gregorian Chant as the norm for ecclesiastical chant throughout his kingdom.

At his request, Pope Hadrian I sent monks from Rome to the court of Aachen to instruct his chapel's choir in 774. This event helped spark the spread of traditional Gregorian chant through the Frankish churches. In 789, Charlemagne also issued a decree to his empire's clergy, instructing them to learn (and sing properly) the Cantus Romanus, or Roman chant. Music schools were also founded under Charlemagne's reign, and monks transcribing music helped preserve the Gregorian chant into the present day.

  Scholars debate whether the essentials of the melodies originated in Rome, before the 7th century, or in Francia, in the 8th and early 9th centuries. Traditionalists point to evidence supporting an important role for Pope Gregory the Great between 590 and 604, such as that presented in H. Bewerung's article in the Catholic Encyclopedia. Scholarly consensus, supported by Willi Apel and Robert Snow, asserts instead that Gregorian chant developed around 750 from a synthesis of Roman and Gallican chant commissioned by Carolingian rulers in France. During a visit to Gaul in 752-753, Pope Stephen II had celebrated Mass using Roman chant. According to Charlemagne, his father Pepin abolished the local Gallican rites in favour of the Roman use, in order to strengthen ties with Rome. In 785-786, at Charlemagne's request, Pope Hadrian I sent a papal sacramentary with Roman chants to the Carolingian court. This Roman chant was subsequently modified, influenced by local styles and Gallican chant, and later adapted into the system of eight modes. This Frankish-Roman Carolingian chant, augmented with new chants to complete the liturgical year, became known as "Gregorian." Originally the chant was probably so named to honour the contemporary Pope Gregory II, but later lore attributed the authorship of chant to his more famous predecessor Gregory the Great. Gregory was portrayed dictating plainchant inspired by a dove representing the Holy Spirit, giving Gregorian chant the stamp of holy authority. The myth of Gregory's authorship is popularly accepted as fact to this day.

  Gregorian chant appeared in a remarkably uniform state across Europe within a short time. Charlemagne, once elevated to Holy Roman Emperor, aggressively spread Gregorian chant throughout his empire to consolidate religious and secular power, requiring the clergy to use the new repertory on pain of death. From English and German sources, Gregorian chant spread north to Scandinavia, Iceland and Finland. In 885, Pope Stephen V banned the Slavonic liturgy, leading to the ascendancy of Gregorian chant in Eastern Catholic lands including Poland, Moravia, Slovakia, and Austria. - Gregorian chant

Charlemagne made reforms within the Church:

  Unlike his father, Pepin, and uncle Carloman, Charlemagne expanded the reform program of the church. The deepening of the spiritual life was later to be seen as central to public policy and royal governance. His reform focused on the strengthening of the church’s power structure, advancing the skill and moral quality of the clergy, standardizing liturgical practices, improving on the basic tenets of the faith and moral, and rooting out paganism. His authority was now extended over church and state; he could discipline clerics, control ecclesiastical property, and define orthodox doctrine. Despite the harsh legislation and sudden change, he had grown a well-developed support from the clergy who approved his desire to deepen the piety and morals of his Christian subjects. - Church Reform

Charlemagne standardize silver currency in his day.

As Charlemagne conquered Western Europe, he recognized the need for a standard currency. Instead of a variety of different gold coins, his government produced and disseminated silver coinage that could be traded across the empire—the first common currency on the continent since the Roman era. The currency’s system of dividing a Carolingian pound of pure silver into 240 pieces was so successful that France kept a basic version of it until the French Revolution.

  Europe was entering its fourth century of the "Dark Ages" when Charlemagne was born in A.D. 742, a time marked by frequent warfare, few important cultural achievements and the virtual cessation of learning. Charlemagne became ruler of one of those kingdoms in Germany in A.D. 768 and immediately set about expanding his territory. Through the course of more than 50 battles, most of which he led in person, he'd conquered almost all of mainland Europe. Everywhere his rule was established, Charlemagne instituted the same reforms, creating a common identity in people from eastern Germany to southern Spain. Commerce boomed. One of the most important changes Charlemagne made was abandoning the gold standard and putting all of Europe on the same silver currency. Trade became easier and the continent prospered, aided by laws that took some power away from the nobles and let the peasantry participate in commerce. The lower classes benefited in other ways under Charlemagne, who was frustrated with the nobility's sense of entitlement and had deep sympathy for the peasants, according to historians. Among other legislation, all local regional governors were subject to regular inspections by royal emissaries to make sure no injustices were being done. Educational reform was also high on Charlemagne's agenda. The progressive leader loved to learn, historians say, and so encouraged schooling throughout his kingdom in his chosen lingua franca, Latin. - How Charlemagne Changed the World

More information may be gleaned from the following articles:

Early Medieval Ethics
Alcuin (Catholic Encyclopedia): An eminent educator, scholar, and theologian born about 735; died 19 May, 804. He came of noble Northumbrian parentage. While returning from Rome in March, 781, he met Charlemagne at Parma, and was induced by that prince, whom he greatly admired, to remove to France and take up residence at the royal court as "Master of the Palace School".


What is the meaning of "anything" in Matthew 18:19-20? In Matthew 18:19-20, Jesus says:

  “Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.”

What does Jesus mean?

From a surface understanding, it sounds like any prayer request will be granted if two people agree? However, I know from experience that is not the case - Bob and Sue agree that a new car would be a good thing, but they do not get one.

How should this directive be applied?

Another verse that supports this concept:

  Mark 11:24 (NASB)
  Therefore I say to you, all things for which you pray and ask, believe that you have received them, and they will be granted you.

Why doesn't this work?

Let's look at things a bit more in context (of Mark):

  Mark 11:22-24 (NASB)
  22 And Jesus answered saying to them, “Have faith in God. 23 Truly I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and cast into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says is going to happen, it will be granted him. 24 Therefore I say to you, all things for which you pray and ask, believe that you have received them, and they will be granted you.

It's very clear that God will answer any prayer you have.  However, if you don't have faith, your prayers won't be answered.

Furthermore, we should pray continuously for something we want!  We see this in the parable of the widow and the unjust judge.  The widow constantly bothers the judge and he finally relents even though he is neither godly nor just.  He basically says "Fine, you can have it, go away."

Finally, we need to make sure that we're asking for the right motives.  James 4:1-3 shows that if we're asking for things for our own earthly pleasure, then that's the wrong motive.  Like Jesus, we should try to keep God's will in mind when we pray for something.

So, why doesn't it always work to pray for something?

Here seem to be the biblical criteria:

You must have more than one person agreeing on the need
You must believe that it will be granted
You must pray continually about it and make your prayers constant until it is granted
You must ask with the right motives

Then, you will be able to move mountains.

A word study

This isn't really necessary for the answer (once I re-read the question), but I'd already written it up, so I'll include it here:

This gets a bit more interesting in the Greek.

We see

  Again, [I-am-saying] [to-you] that [if-ever] two [of you] [should-be-agreeing] on the earth concerning [any/every] [practice/matter] which [if-ever] [theys-shoud-be-requesting] [it-shall-be-becoming] [to-them] beside the father [of-me] [the-one] in heavens

The translation in question "anything" actually comes from two words:  pantos [any/every] and pragmatos [practice/matter].

The word pantos is pretty self-explanatory, if you simply accept that it means "each thing, all, or every".  The word pragmatos is a bit more interesting, though:

Vines lexicon shows:

  From the root pragma (Strong / Vines entry)
  1. that which has been done, a deed, an accomplished fact
  2. what is done or being accomplished
      a. spec. business, a commercial transaction
  3. a matter, question, affair

So, in essence, the verse is saying that if ever two of you agree on the earth about any practice, every deed, any question that they are requesting, it will be given.

Word definition summary

Essentially, if two or more people agree to ask for any deed to be done or any question to be answered, God will do it.


Does the Catholic Church attempt to explain scientifically any miracles associated with Jesus' time on earth? Miracles by their very definition defy logical scientific explanation.
However human nature is to try to figure a way to explain how something incredible may have occured including what molecular manipulation would be necessary to bring about unexplainable occurrences found in the Bible.

Does the Catholic Church delve into the scientific intricacies involved in miracles associated with Jesus?
Is it considered a worthwhile endeavor to do so?

Does the Catholic Church attempt to explain scientifically any miracles associated with Jesus' time on earth?
I know of no Catholic theologian or Catholic scientist who has attempted to do so with the Biblical miracles performed by Christ.
But it is certainly permitted within the philosophical understandings of the Catholic Church. Just because I do not know of anyone within the Church to have done so: yet.
To be honest here, I would be surprised that no Catholic theologian or scientist has taken up this avenue of research. Just can not find one...
It could stated here that the miracles needed for a beatification or canonization are done by the power of God and by extension Christ who is the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity.
Revelation 5:8 speaks of 24 elders with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints, but Catholics are not as wedded to the text of Scripture as in other denominations. It is a long tradition, that some Protestants would argue is not unbiblical, that deceased Christians pray for and can even, through the power of God, work miracles for, the living.
Pope St. John Paul II’s encyclical letter Fides et Ratio gives the faithful a way to understand scientific research in the domain of faith, when trying to understand the Mysteries of Faith such as the Resurrection of Christ. Scientific research into the miracles of Jesus must follow clear guidelines in order to remain valid forms of research and investigation.

It may help, then, to turn briefly to the different modes of truth. Most of them depend upon immediate evidence or are confirmed by experimentation. This is the mode of truth proper to everyday life and to scientific research. At another level we find philosophical truth, attained by means of the speculative powers of the human intellect. Finally, there are religious truths which are to some degree grounded in philosophy, and which we find in the answers which the different religious traditions offer to the ultimate questions. (30)
The more influential of these radical positions are well known and high in profile, especially in the history of the West. It is not too much to claim that the development of a good part of modern philosophy has seen it move further and further away from Christian Revelation, to the point of setting itself quite explicitly in opposition. This process reached its apogee in the last century. Some representatives of idealism sought in various ways to transform faith and its contents, even the mystery of the Death and Resurrection of Jesus, into dialectical structures which could be grasped by reason. Opposed to this kind of thinking were various forms of atheistic humanism, expressed in philosophical terms, which regarded faith as alienating and damaging to the development of a full rationality. They did not hesitate to present themselves as new religions serving as a basis for projects which, on the political and social plane, gave rise to totalitarian systems which have been disastrous for humanity. (46)
In the field of scientific research, a positivistic mentality took hold which not only abandoned the Christian vision of the world, but more especially rejected every appeal to a metaphysical or moral vision. It follows that certain scientists, lacking any ethical point of reference, are in danger of putting at the centre of their concerns something other than the human person and the entirety of the person's life. Further still, some of these, sensing the opportunities of technological progress, seem to succumb not only to a market-based logic, but also to the temptation of a quasi-divine power over nature and even over the human being. (46)
Finally, I cannot fail to address a word to scientists, whose research offers an ever greater knowledge of the universe as a whole and of the incredibly rich array of its component parts, animate and inanimate, with their complex atomic and molecular structures. So far has science come, especially in this century, that its achievements never cease to amaze us. In expressing my admiration and in offering encouragement to these brave pioneers of scientific research, to whom humanity owes so much of its current development, I would urge them to continue their efforts without ever abandoning the sapiential horizon within which scientific and technological achievements are wedded to the philosophical and ethical values which are the distinctive and indelible mark of the human person. Scientists are well aware that “the search for truth, even when it concerns a finite reality of the world or of man, is never-ending, but always points beyond to something higher than the immediate object of study, to the questions which give access to Mystery”. (106)

The miracles performed by Christ, like the miracles needed in the cases of beatification and canonization
are events that go beyond the forces of nature, which are realized by God outside of what is normal in the whole of created nature.

"For the beatification of a servant of God who is not a martyr, the Church requires a miracle; for canonization, including that of a martyr, it requires another," he explained. "Only the presumed miracles attributed to the intercession of a servant of God or of a blessed 'post mortem' can be the object of verification."
A miracle is an "event that goes beyond the forces of nature, which is realized by God outside of what is normal in the whole of created nature by the intercession of a servant of God or a blessed," Monsignor Di Ruberto said.
The investigation of a miracle is carried out separately from that of virtues or martyrdom.
Consequently, the recognition of a miracle "makes it possible to grant with certainty permission for devotion," he added. Hence, the "capital importance of keeping miracles as a requirement in the causes of canonization."
A collegial body made up of five medical specialists and two professional experts form the Medical Consultation, in charge of the scientific examination of the presumed miracle. Their judgment is of a "strictly scientific" character, so their being "atheists or of other religions is not relevant," Monsignor Di Ruberto emphasized.
"Their examination and final discussion are concluded by precisely establishing the diagnosis of the illness, the prognosis, the treatment and its solution," he continued. "To be considered the object of a possible miracle, the cure must be judged by the specialists to have been rapid, complete, lasting and inexplicable, according to present medical-scientific knowledge."
The miracle might go beyond the capacities of nature in regard to the substance or the subject of the event, or the way it occurred.
So a distinction is made of three great miracles: the resurrection of the dead; the complete cure — which might entail the reconstruction of organs — of a person judged incurable; or the curing of an illness — which could be cured over time but takes place instantly.
"If there are uncertainties, the consultation suspends the evaluation and asks for more experts or documentation," Monsignor Di Ruberto said. "Once there is a majority or unanimity in the voting, the examination is sent to the theologians' consultation."
Starting with the conclusions of the Medical Consultation, the theologians "are called to identify the nexus of causality between prayer to the Servant of God and an inexplicable cure or technical success, and they express the judgment that the prodigious event is a real miracle."
"When the theologians have also expressed their vote in writing, the assessment is sent to the Congregation for Bishops and cardinals who, after hearing the exposé of a 'speaker,' discuss all the elements of the miracle," the monsignor said. "Each component, therefore, gives his judgment, which must be submitted for the approval of the Pope."
Finally, it is the Holy Father who "determines the miracle and decides on the promulgation of the decree," the monsignor said. The latter is a juridical act of the Congregation for Sainthood Causes, sanctioned by the Pope, "by which a prodigious event is defined as a genuine miracle," he concluded. - Why Miracles Are Required for Canonizations

Scientific research into the Biblical miracles performed by Jesus should have as as an object to gain deeper and more clear understanding of Christ’s life and works while amongst men. It is not a question of trying to draw doubt one these issues. This remains a viable and valid form of genuine Catholic scientific research by Catholics researchers of the truths within our holy religion. Truth has nothing to fear.
The following articles may be of interest to some:

Miracles of Christ: They may be divided into five classes: nature miracles; miracles of healing; deliverance of demoniacs; victories over hostile wills; cases of resurrection.
Does It Make Sense To Believe Saints Can Work Miracles?


In the Church of England, can one accept communion without being confimed? If someone is baptised as a child, but never confirmed, can such a person receive communion? I'd like the viewpoint of the Church of England.

This comes under Canon B15A. The only essential prerequisite is baptism.

Other than that:

If you're a member of the C of E, you should be confirmed (or at least want to be confirmed) to take communion.
Any baptised person who can take communion in their own church can take communion in the C of E. (Assuming their own church believes in the Trinity.)
If you're about to die, you can go ahead and take communion despite the other rules.
Synod sometimes makes other provisions. In particular, children who have reached the age of reason, and expect to be confirmed when they're older, can take communion if the diocesan bishop permits it.

But see the canon law for the full details. There are also rules going the other way-- for example, Roman Catholics are forbidden by their canon law to receive communion from Anglican priests, even though Anglican canon law would permit it.


In what situations does the Bible say it's acceptable, perhaps, to do an action you might consider sinful? Generally speaking, the bible is very clear that:

Authority is set up by God.
If this authority, eg, a the governing heirachy, is in conflict with God (as was the case in the book of Daniel), then it is to God that we must submit to, not to man.

However, I seem to remember one place where a man's actions, which would have been sinful if he had any choice in the matter, were regarded as acceptable behaviour because he performed them without free will in obedience to his king.

Sadly I can't remember if this was something as trivial as being cup bearer, where one consumes potentially poisoned drinks at risk of great personal harm, or if there was a more significant event.

Could someone tell me of any such situations?  This is relevant today if, eg, in the army you are commanded to kill someone, and for some reason you believe that, in that particular case, it might be murder.  Where does the bible stand on such grey situations?

(Note:  I am not talking about clear situations - some readers here will adopt a hardline answer, to the point where a solder should not kill anyone in the course of battle. That is fine, those readers have a clear answer.  I am asking about what to do when the situation is NOT clear, perhaps due to insufficient information, insufficient knowledge, or simple lack of free will).

The situation you are probably thinking of is Naaman, whose story appears in 2 Kings chapter 5. Naaman, 'commander of the army of the king of Aram', was healed of leprosy through the prophet Elisha, and becomes a follower of God. He says:

  Your servant will never again make burnt offerings and sacrifices to any other god but the Lord. But may the Lord forgive your servant for this one thing: When my master enters the temple of Rimmon to bow down and he is leaning on my arm and I have to bow there also—when I bow down in the temple of Rimmon, may the Lord forgive your servant for this.” (verse 17-18)

On the other hand, if you read the story of Daniel, he and his companions Shadrach, Mesdhach and Abednego refused to follow the commands of the King and were thrown into a den of lions/fiery furnace for this. So you can't take this as a universal example.

You might also like to read Matthew Chapter 12, where Jesus gives a couple of examples of doing things that were not lawful - especially David, who ate the forbidden bread when he and his companions were hungry.


What are the various eternal destinies or after lives that are possible in LDS Mormon Doctrine? Upon reading Does the Mormon doctrine of exaltation implicitly require acknowledging the existence of sentient extra-terrestrial life? to satiate my curiosity on the who, what, and how of the exaltation doctrine I learned that not all faithful Mormons 'become gods'. Once I learned of the doctrine I immediately assumed that exaltation is the eternal destiny for all faithful Mormons.

But now I know that is not the case, so I ask what are all the various possible eternal destinies in LDS Mormon doctrine? If it is not too much effort, the minimum requirements to gain those things would be nice to see as well.

For example, most Baptists would answer there is eternal life with God in heaven or eternal damnation is Hell. Catholics would include purgatory somewhere. Annihilationists would say eternal life or death (sometimes called eternal sleep). What would Mormons say, since they seem to have different "levels" of heaven for the faithful?

LDS doctrine on the subject is found in section 76 of the Doctrine and Covenants.  Referring to the circumstances in which he received this revelation, Joseph Smith stated:

  From sundry revelations which had been received, it was apparent that
  many important points touching the salvation of man had been taken
  from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled. It appeared
  self-evident from what truths were left, that if God rewarded every
  one according to the deeds done in the body the term ‘Heaven,’ as
  intended for the Saints’ eternal home, must include more kingdoms than
  one.

Upon seeking clarification from the Lord, this revelation was received, regarding the nature of the eternal destiny of mankind.  It first speaks of the "sons of perdition," people whose choices have placed them outside of the Atonement.

  31 Thus saith the Lord concerning all those who know my power, and
  have been made partakers thereof, and suffered themselves through the
  power of the devil to be overcome, and to deny the truth and defy my
  power—

  32 They are they who are the sons of perdition, of whom I say that it
  had been better for them never to have been born;

  33 For they are vessels of wrath, doomed to suffer the wrath of God,
  with the devil and his angels in eternity;

  34 Concerning whom I have said there is no forgiveness in this world
  nor in the world to come—

  35 Having denied the Holy Spirit after having received it, and having
  denied the Only Begotten Son of the Father, having crucified him unto
  themselves and put him to an open shame.

  36 These are they who shall go away into the lake of fire and
  brimstone, with the devil and his angels—

  37 And the only ones on whom the second death shall have any power;

  38 Yea, verily, the only ones who shall not be redeemed in the due
  time of the Lord, after the sufferings of his wrath.

So the sons of perdition are people who "know my power and have been made partakers thereof" and then "deny the truth and defy my power," and they will be consigned to hell for eternity, with Satan and his fallen angels.

After this, it moves on to a more pleasant topic, the fate of those who have not committed unpardonable sins, and defines three "degrees of glory," as they're commonly known in LDS theology:

  50 And again we bear record—for we saw and heard, and this is the
  testimony of the gospel of Christ concerning them who shall come forth
  in the resurrection of the just—

  51 They are they who received the testimony of Jesus, and believed on
  his name and were baptized after the manner of his burial, being
  buried in the water in his name, and this according to the commandment
  which he has given—

  52 That by keeping the commandments they might be washed and cleansed
  from all their sins, and receive the Holy Spirit by the laying on of
  the hands of him who is ordained and sealed unto this power;

  53 And who overcome by faith, and are sealed by the Holy Spirit of
  promise, which the Father sheds forth upon all those who are just and
  true.

  ...

  58 Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God—

  59 Wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things
  present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ’s, and
  Christ is God’s.

  60 And they shall overcome all things.

  ...

  70 These are they whose bodies are celestial, whose glory is that of
  the sun, even the glory of God, the highest of all, whose glory the
  sun of the firmament is written of as being typical.

The reward of the most faithful is commonly known as "the Celestial kingdom," or also "exaltation," and is the idea that people unfamiliar with LDS theology are thinking of when they hear that Mormons believe they can become Gods in the afterlife.

After this, the revelation speaks of the the eternal rewards for people who have not lived a Celestial-grade life:

  71 And again, we saw the terrestrial world, and behold and lo, these
  are they who are of the terrestrial, whose glory differs from that of
  the church of the Firstborn who have received the fulness of the
  Father, even as that of the moon differs from the sun in the
  firmament.

  72 Behold, these are they who died without law;

  73 And also they who are the spirits of men kept in prison, whom the
  Son visited, and preached the gospel unto them, that they might be
  judged according to men in the flesh;

  74 Who received not the testimony of Jesus in the flesh, but
  afterwards received it.

  75 These are they who are honorable men of the earth, who were
  blinded by the craftiness of men.

  76 These are they who receive of his glory, but not of his fulness.

  77 These are they who receive of the presence of the Son, but not of
  the fulness of the Father.

  78 Wherefore, they are bodies terrestrial, and not bodies celestial,
  and differ in glory as the moon differs from the sun.

  79 These are they who are not valiant in the testimony of Jesus;
  wherefore, they obtain not the crown over the kingdom of our God.

Those who inherit "the Terrestrial kingdom" can be thought of as people who were "good, but not great," and thus their reward was not as great as those who were more valiant in their faith.

And finally, it speaks of "the Telestial kingdom," the lowest of the three degrees of glory:

  81 And again, we saw the glory of the telestial, which glory is that
  of the lesser, even as the glory of the stars differs from that of the
  glory of the moon in the firmament.

  82 These are they who received not the gospel of Christ, neither the
  testimony of Jesus.

  83 These are they who deny not the Holy Spirit.

  84 These are they who are thrust down to hell.

  85 These are they who shall not be redeemed from the devil until the
  last resurrection, until the Lord, even Christ the Lamb, shall have
  finished his work.

  86 These are they who receive not of his fulness in the eternal
  world, but of the Holy Spirit through the ministration of the
  terrestrial;

  ...

  99 For these are they who are of Paul, and of Apollos, and of Cephas.

  100 These are they who say they are some of one and some of
  another—some of Christ and some of John, and some of Moses, and some
  of Elias, and some of Esaias, and some of Isaiah, and some of Enoch;

  101 But received not the gospel, neither the testimony of Jesus,
  neither the prophets, neither the everlasting covenant.

  102 Last of all, these all are they who will not be gathered with the
  saints, to be caught up unto the church of the Firstborn, and received
  into the cloud.

  103 These are they who are liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and
  whoremongers, and whosoever loves and makes a lie.

  104 These are they who suffer the wrath of God on earth.

  105 These are they who suffer the vengeance of eternal fire.

  106 These are they who are cast down to hell and suffer the wrath of
  Almighty God, until the fulness of times, when Christ shall have
  subdued all enemies under his feet, and shall have perfected his work;

  ...

  111 For they shall be judged according to their works, and every man
  shall receive according to his own works, his own dominion, in the
  mansions which are prepared;

  112 And they shall be servants of the Most High; but where God and
  Christ dwell they cannot come, worlds without end.

People who have not lived righteous lives, and yet have not committed the unforgivable sin, will eventually be forgiven after they have suffered for their sins, and receive a small reward in heaven according to the quality of the lives they chose to live.

Section 76 is one of the longest chapters in the Doctrine and Covenants, and I've cut down the quotes a fair bit for brevity, but this covers the core of the LDS doctrine on the afterlife and the various different destinies available to mankind.


What is an overview of the early Church's viewpoints on Christology at the time of the Apostolic Era? What were the beliefs of the early Church regarding the nature of Jesus during the Apostolic Era? By Apostolic Era, I mean the time of the Apostles and their immediate successors who knew them personally. Do we have sufficient historical evidence to build an overview of their Christological beliefs? For instance, did Christians during the Apostolic Era believe that Jesus was 1) uppercase God, 2) lowercase god, 3) a powerful pre-existent but created being, 4) just a human or 5) any other view that I may be overlooking? Was there a particular view that was the most prevalent/popular at the time?

This has been interpreted many ways. And it is made all the more challenging by questions regarding who wrote which documents and when. For purposes of this response, I will assume the entirety of the New Testament was written by AD 100, the history in Acts is reliable, and that Polycarp represents the last surviving Christian leader who was an immediate successor to the apostles.
There is clearly much more that what known by the apostles than has been preserved in the handful of documents we have from their time.
Let's look at a few passages by decade.
The 30s
The creed preserved in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 is held by conservative and liberal scholars alike to date to the 30s. A few key statements:

Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was
buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the
scriptures:

Indicating a belief that Jesus died for sin and rose again--and that His work was prophesied in the Tanakh.
The 40s
I personally date the Gospel of Matthew to the 40s, but I recognize I'm in a minority position here. If we include Matthew, then already in the 40s Jesus is being called Emmanuel.
Acts 10 records a sermon by Peter with the following relevant highlights:

Jesus is Lord of all (vs. 36)
God anointed Jesus (vs. 38)
God was with Jesus (vs. 38)
God raised Jesus from the dead and Jesus appeared (vs. 40-41)
Jesus is our Judge (vs. 42)

The 50s
Here we have the bulk of Paul's teachings, including the extended sermon on the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15, and the very high-Christology of Romans. Paul regularly refers to Jesus as Lord, and many understand Romans 9:5 to refer to Jesus as God.
1 example from 1 Cor. 15:

28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son
also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that
God may be all in all.

This is a potent claim! All things will be subject to Christ.
The 60s
Assuming Hebrews and Colossians date to the 60s, here we have some of the highest Christology in the New Testament.
From Colossians 1:

16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that
are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or
dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by
him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning,
the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the
preeminence.

From Hebrews 1:

8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever:
a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Indicating, among other things, that Jesus is the creator, all things consist by him, and that His status as Deity is not in doubt.
Pre-100
Dates here are more controversial, so I'm using a range. I'll cite passages from 3 books that date to this era.

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man
cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6)

(to be sure, I have no problem with the idea that Jesus said this in the 30s; this text reflects that Christians were repeating these words at this time)

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have
seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have
handled, of the Word of life; (1 John 1:1)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God. (John 1:1)

Since I just quoted one of the most contested passages in scripture, I'll let these verses speak for themselves =). I'll at least try not to take sides but stick to the question.
Also during this period we get clear statements against Docetism--meaning the idea that Jesus didn't really come in the flesh was something that was being said by some--and refuted by authoritative individuals. I have written on this subject here.
Early 2nd century
Ignatius wrote 7 epistles circa 107 as he was en route to Rome to be executed. In his Epistle to the Ephesians, chapter 7:

There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both
made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of
Mary and of God; first passible and then impassible — even Jesus
Christ our Lord.

Polycarp quotes the documents of the New Testament extensively, so much of his work would be a repeat of the sections above.  Two points worth making from Polycarp's epistle to the Philippians (circa AD 107):

He repeatedly refers to "God and Christ"
In chapter 12 he says:

But may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ
Himself, who is the Son of God, and our everlasting High Priest, build
you up

Although Polycarp lived nearly another half-century, we regrettably do not have any other surviving works by him.
Both Ignatius and Polycarp were taught by apostles. Their writings indicate respecting Jesus as God, but also acknowledging a distinction between God the Father and Jesus.
Specific questions from the OP

uppercase God & 2) lowercase god: there is no distinction between majuscules and miniscules in the manuscripts of the time, so no difference would exist between "God" and "god" in these writings--this is an interpretation of the text, not an explicit repetition of the text. That Jesus is called God is found in Hebrews, John, and Ignatius, to name a few.

a powerful pre-existent but created being: The Colossians passage referred to Jesus as the beginning and the creator. Much debate could surely ensue about what the beginning means. John 1:1, John 8:58, and Hebrews 1:2 are commonly cited as evidence of Jesus' pre-mortal existence. This remains a debate in New Testament interpretation to this day, but at the very least we can safely say that the texts used in these debates were in circulation during the apostolic era.

just a human: I find no references to support this view, except on the lips of Jesus' enemies.

Theological development
If the Gospel of John reliably preserves the teachings of Jesus, then the idea of theological development transforming Christian thought between the 30's and the 90's is unsound. The Christology of the apostles themselves stayed right around the same place from ~Pentecost until the end of the century.
If the Gospel of John is a late, unreliable document (this is not my view), then at the very least, we've got full on high Christology within a few years of AD 60, well within the lifetimes of multiple apostles and numerous eyewitnesses.
Once upon a time I created a video pointing out the flaws in trying to introduce patterns of changing theology in the New Testament. That video can be found here.
My own studied view with respect to Christology & chronology is that the highest Christology in the New Testament is fully consistent with what the apostles believed in the early 30s; they didn't teach the most profound doctrines until they'd laid a "milk before meat" foundation, which is why so many early documents do not contain some of the more potent teachings by Jesus about who He was. I have a post on SE-Hermeneutics discussing this specifically with respect to the Gospel of John.
Some wish to say New Testament theology shows a sequence of development between the 30s and the 90s--I disagree. I believe major changes in Christian understanding of theology happened:

Between Jesus' baptism and Pentecost
After the apostles were gone

Concluding thoughts
The writings of the apostles and their immediate successors suggest that from very early on, Christianity was plagued with diverse doctrines. I see in the teachings of the apostles themselves, however, that Jesus was Divine and that He was distinct from the Father. Both of those principles have been reworked many times over the millennia to produce a variety of theologies that were not taught by the apostles.
What about the later creeds? From Harper's Bible Dictionary:

the formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great
church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found
in the [New Testament] (see here p. 1099)

So the creeds aren't there in the first century, but the most significant passages that would be used to support many theologies over the years (which surely is not what the apostles wanted) were all there within the first century.
This is a difficult topic upon which to give an even-keel overview. My own beliefs are described here.