How does the Bible differentiate between sickness and sin? Jay Adams is probably the most pre-eminent Christian counselor who is still living. His nouthetic style of counseling, as explored in books such as Competent to Counsel, The Christian Counselor's Handbook and others makes him very well known and respected in the Christian Counseling community.

In his book Solving Marriage Problems, he makes an interesting claim:

  Calling drunkenness a "disease" or a "sickness" rather than a "sin" may seem to thema gracious act, but it is just the opposite. You cannot be more gracious than God. To call drunkenness a "sickness" is to take away hope; there is no pull that will cure such a "disease". But if, as the Bible says, drunkenness is a sin, then there is real hope, because Christ Jesus came not only to free us from the penalty but also from the power of sin. (Solving Marriage Problems, p14)

This strikes me as contrary to worldly ways of thinking to say the least - namely there seems to be an implicit assumption of mine that is challenged here.

I've long held alcoholism - or at least the genetic predisposition towards it - to be a disease. As a disease of the body, I see this as somehow "less than sin" because, in fact, it is a biological process put in place by God. In the same way that just about every Christian more mature than Fred Phelps doesn't view "blackness" as a sin, I've always assumed that any biological function is simply a fact, and not a "sin."

Interestingly, Adams seems to then fight his own hypothesis, though, saying:

  When, however, there may be an organic reason for any problem, the counselor should always advise the counselee to have a thorough medical evaluation. ... Because organic problems, which result from Adam's sin and the subsequent curse, are not themselves sin, Christian counselors must become thoroughly acquainted with their symptoms and advise counselees accordingly.

But therein lies the rub - Adams has made and I have made an assumption that a thing cannot be both a disease and a sin.  It is definitely my gut feeling, but I don't know how I could biblically prove that point.

So, here's the question - What biblical texts or traditions would bear on the proposition that "Diseases and sins are separate things."  In other words, how could I make either the claim that "If something is a disease, it is not at the same moral level as sin" or "Just because something is a disease, doesn't mean it's a sin."

The full context of Adam's claims are obviously hidden from us here. However, addressing the visible claims from a lay Catholic perspective, I'd say he's simply off the mark with a few premises.

The First Faulty Premise

  To call drunkenness a "sickness" is to take away hope; there is no
  pull that will cure such a "disease".

If secular medicine and psychology aren't enough to convince us that disease is not a hopeless state, we can open any one of the gospels and take a peek at almost any page to find healing upon healing upon healing. And these healings always denote the forgiveness of sin and the purifying power to go forward and "sin no more."

See Matthew 4:24, which gives us a short list of diseases Jesus cures. This items on this list are very important and relevant, mind you -- they're all conditions that directly inhibit our ability to perform God's will.

  His fame spread to all of Syria, and they brought to him all who were
  sick with various diseases and racked with pain, those who were
  possessed, lunatics, and paralytics, and he cured them.

Or refer to Matthew 8:1-17, in which healing the diseased is portrayed again as routine operation for Christ. Even more astounding, note how final verse in the list of healings ends.

  When it was evening, they brought him many who were possessed by
  demons, and he drove out the spirits by a word and cured all the sick,
  to fulfill what had been said by Isaiah the prophet: He took away our
  infirmities and bore our diseases.

One of Christ's missions and trademarks, as explicitly stated in scripture, is to cure the sick, take away our infirmities, and bear our diseases. Thus, I'd submit that hopelessness in the shadow of disease is sin; it rejects Christ's power and mission to heal.

The Second Faulty Premise

  Adams has made and I have made an assumption that a thing cannot be
  both a disease and a sin.

I'm not sure this statement of yours matches Adam's exactly:

  Because organic problems, which result from Adam's sin and the
  subsequent curse, are not themselves sin

From what I can see in your citations, Adam's seems to leave room for the interpretation that the organic roots of sinful behavior are not sinful, but that the resulting actions may still be sinful.

But, giving you the benefit of the doubt, since I'm not familiar with Adam's or his book(s), one passage in particular comes to mind. See Mark 9:42-48.

  42 “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe [in me] to
  sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were put around
  his neck and he were thrown into the sea. 43 If your hand causes you
  to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed
  than with two hands to go into Gehenna, into the unquenchable fire. 44
  45 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for
  you to enter into life crippled than with two feet to be thrown into
  Gehenna. 47 And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. Better
  for you to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye than with two
  eyes to be thrown into Gehenna, 48 where ‘their worm does not die, and
  the fire is not quenched.’

In this segment, Christ is not necessarily addressing diseases, but He is very clearly addressing biological causes for sin. And in doing so, He makes it very clear that the sins resulting from these biological causes do condemn us. And while we tend to believe He's speaking in hyperbole here, the importance of earnestly trying to cut oneself off from any and all sources of sin, even those ingrained in our own body, is very important to our salvation.

In Summary

We can certainly distinguish between disease (or any biological cause) and the resulting actions, be they sinful or not. However, a biological cause is neither a hopeless condition nor a judgement free condition. For, if the biological causes for sin left us guiltless, Christ would neither warn us against them, nor spend His time healing us and "bearing our diseases." Bearing our diseases is a large part to Christ's mission. So, we're definitely not left hopeless.

Catholic doctrine teaches that our guilt is diminished to the extent our actions are beyond our direct control. However, sinful actions are still sinful even when we are guiltless in performing them. Thus, if we are complacent in our diseases or sins, I would argue I think with the support of Catholic doctrine, that we regain the guilt of those sins!

(And by "guilt" I mean some measure by which we may be condemned.)


What are the duties of a Pope? Can a pope be "good" or "bad" in this perspective? Is there something like "bad" or "good" popes"?

What is the meaning when a pope is qualified "good" or "bad", with the historical perspective. For instance, some popes have bad reputation in the history books. Did they fail to their duties? What were their duties? Have you got some examples of popes who failed to them in the history?

At the opposite, can some popes being considered as very exemplary?

The Duties of a Pope
Pope St. Pius X mentions his papal duties at the very beginning of his encyclical against Modernism, Pascendi Dominici gregis (1907):

The office [of the papacy] divinely committed to Us of feeding the Lord's flock* has especially this duty assigned to it by Christ, namely, to guard with the greatest vigilance the deposit of the faith delivered to the saints, rejecting the profane novelties of words and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called.

*cf. John 21:15-17, where Jesus tells St. Peter, the first Pope, to feed his flock (i.e., to give Christians the truths necessary for salvation).
St. Thomas Aquinas's commentary on John 21:15-17 overviews the duties of a pope. A pope is to feed the flock (i.e., all Christians) by:

teaching: "And I will give you shepherds after my own heart, who will feed you with knowledge and understanding" (Jer 3:15).

example: "Set the believers an example in speech and conduct, in love, in faith, in purity" (1 Tim 4:12); "Upon the mountain heights of Israel," that is, in the excellence of great men, "shall be their pasture" (Ez 34:14).

being offered temporal help: "Woe, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding yourselves! Should not shepherds feed the sheep?" (Ez 34:2).

So, a pope must teach (cf. the Great Commission, Mt. 28:19: "Going therefore, teach ye all nations"), sanctify, and rule (yes, even temporally; cf. Cdl. Manning's The Temporal Power of the Vicar of Christ).
The Council of Florence defined, and the First Vatican Council (Pastor Æternus cap. 4) reiterated, that

the Roman Pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, and the head of the whole Church, and the father and teacher of all Christians; and that to him in blessed Peter was delivered by our Lord Jesus Christ the full power of feeding, ruling, and governing the whole Church.

Vatican I called this the Roman Pontiff's "pastoral duty" or pastorale munus (ibid.).
Pope Benedict XIV wrote (Pastoralis Romani Pontificis):

the duties of his [i.e., of a Pope's] office, are principally and above all manifested in maintaining and conserving the unity and integrity of the Catholic faith, without which it is impossible to please God.

"Bad Popes"
Bad popes would be those who do not live up to their aforementioned duties.
Regarding "bad popes" and such bad "popes" that they are not even popes, see this article:

The “Bad Popes” Argument


Seventh day Adventists...will the saved ultimately take on a new form in the kingdom of God? What is the SDA explanation of the following.

1 Corinthians 15:49-50 states:

  And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man.
  50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

We as Christians pray for Gods kingdom to come {Matthew 6:10}; but if flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom as is stated in 1st Corinthians above; does this not then logically mean the saved will have to take on another form?

The question is directly answered by Paul in the following verses through an anlalogy.

  51 Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all
  be changed, 52in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last
  trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised
  imperishable, and we shall be changed. 53For this perishable body must
  put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality.
  54When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on
  immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written:

This passage completes the analogy, which is that of redemption through Jesus Christ. When Paul says that 'flesh and blood can not inherit the kingdom of God' he is referring to sinful creation.  However through redemption that is when in the mortal body can put on immortality.

Body and spirit are important theological components, and these components are combined by God in the creative act in Genesis 2. Where God breathed into the man and he became a living thing.  That is, Body and Spirit were combined.


According to Catholicism what does it mean for every relationship in heaven to be perfect and fulfilling? The Catholic church teaches that every relationship in heaven will be perfect and fulfilling (for example, see this American Catholic reflection written by Friar Jim Van Vurst, O.F.M.).

What does this mean?

Will every relationship in heaven be perfect and fulfilling in the sense that

I will receive everything I want to receive from every relationship,
I will give everything I want to give in every relationship,

AND

everything that I receive and give in the relationship will be at the level I desire in heaven (everything such as affection, care, intimacy, etc)?

This is a huge topic, and I think, hinges on one of the central concepts of Christianity. I'll try my best to give an appropriate answer, but I probably won't be able to answer it fully.

I believe it's a mix of all three. The writer C.S. Lewis, although Anglican, wrote a fairly short fiction novel called The Great Divorce which exemplifies what many Christians (Catholic or otherwise) believe about the nature of relationship in Heaven. The main point goes something like this:

  "Heaven is reality itself. All that is fully real is Heavenly. For all that can be shaken will be shaken and only the unshakeable remains. - C.S. Lewis, the Great Divorce

Essentially, our earthly relationships are filled with corruptions of God's perfect love, manifesting themselves, for example, as lust, insecurity, fear, etc. Our need for relationship will never be satisfied on Earth because sin distorts our desires, but our earthly desires are a shadow of a deeper desire that can only be fulfilled in perfect union with God. 1 Corinthians 13 of perfect love. Verses 9-10 and 12 are also good examples of this "shadow of a deeper desire" concept.

Jesus will bring us into this perfect relationship. This idea is a central theme in Scripture in the form of the "Jesus will marry his Church" metaphor (see e.g. Romans 7, 2 Corinthians 11:2-4 , Ephesians 5:29-33, Revelations 19:7).

The Catholic church (and pretty much all "orthodox" denominations) believes that in Heaven - since we will have been sanctified - we will be able to experience real love, real joy, and real relationships without the corruption of sin.

I highly recommend you read The Great Divorce if you haven't already.

Another way of looking at "fulfilling" or "satisfying" is in the fact that we can never have enough food or drink. We will always become hungry and thirsty again. Jesus addresses this fact to the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4:10-14, offering her "living water" that will satisfy her thirst forever, and to his disciples in John 6:35. Applying this to relationships is easier if you believe that humans have a constant desire for intimacy, love, affection, and acceptance, and if you understand that under the catholic view, that desire can't be fully satisfied by any human.


How are the teachings in the Book of James consistent with Salvation by Grace alone? I was reading through James today and I understand his point was to convey to the Jews that only having faith - but not showing your gratitude for the grace they've received - is not good. He does get pretty close though to saying that without works your are not saved. Especially when he mentions that by leading others back to Christ covers sins:

  19 My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, 20 let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins. -James 5:19-20

And also:

  17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. -James 2:17

If faith without works is dead, how can we have salvation by grace through faith ALONE?

I came from a Baptist background to a Reformed theology because I didn't agree with their emphasis on works and not Grace, but the book of James (which was used as a defence for this ideology) is really confusing on this.

Can you comment on how some of these statements are compatible with the Grace by Faith Alone doctrine? I don't read Greek so I'm wondering if something was lost in translation or maybe I don't know enough of the context about this book.

If you (say you) have faith but don't have works, do you really have faith?

Works are the result of faith. They don't save you. If you have faith, it is only natural that you will have works. James's question is to people who have no works. Why don't you have any works? Where is your faith?

  Matthew 12:33 (NASB)
  "Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit."

[The sum total of] Our works reveal what we really believe. If we believe God loves everyone, won't we act like it and be unselfish? Won't we put their interests or needs ahead of our own? This is the fruit of faith.

Our works do not save us, for our belief (faith) is what puts us in a position to receive God's grace. They only reveal (to us, more than others) what we have faith in.


According to Charismatic Christians, do those who never hear the gospel of Christ go to hell? I'd like an overview of what Charismatic Christians believe regarding the unreached. Are people who have never heard the gospel of Christ going to hell? For example: infants, fetuses, mentally disabled persons or third-world inhabitants who've passed.

I'll provide answers from a couple charismatic theologians, Wayne Grudem and J. Rodman Williams.  Williams is the author of the first charismatic systematic theology, Renewal Theology, and I'll quote from it and some of his other writings.
Original Sin
First, both writers affirm the doctrine of original sin.  Williams describes it as follows:

"Original sin" refers to the fact that the human race is sinful in nature. [...] [T]he important feature is that man does not come into the world as an innocent or neutral creature but is affected by sin in all aspects of his being (Psalm 58:3; cf. Psalm 51:5). Indeed, by virtue of this fact, man is vitiated in every area of his nature—body, soul, spirit—so that he is utterly incapable himself of restoration and salvation. His only hope is in Jesus Christ.1

Referring to the people who are "without excuse" from Romans 1, Williams writes:

These are people of all times and places, who on their own account and to their own guilt and judgment, turn away from the living God.2

The clear implication here and in the rest of Williams' writing is that the unreached face judgment.
Grudem agrees, and writes more regarding the general revelation mentioned in Romans 1:

[E]ven without the Bible, all persons who have ever lived have had evidence in creation that God exists, that he is the Creator and they are creatures, and have also had some evidence of his character.  As a result, they themselves have known something about God from this evidence (even though this is never said to be a knowledge that is able to bring them to salvation).3

Salvation of Infants
However, both Williams and Grudem specifically refer to the case of infants as a potential exception to this rule.  First, Williams writes:

I suggest you look at Matthew 18:2-4 and 19:13-14. Note especially the words "Let the
children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven
belongs to such as these." Since Jesus graciously received them during His ministry,
surely He will do so in heaven. This does not mean that little children, or infants, are
innocent, but they have no ability to make a decision for or against Christ, which is the
requirement for salvation.4

Grudem goes into more detail.  He says that even infants have sinful natures, citing Psalm 51:5, but he notes the example of John the Baptist in Luke 1:15, saying:

Yet it is certainly possible for God to bring regeneration (that is, new spiritual life) to an infant even before he or she is born.  This was true of John the Baptist [...] We might say that John the Baptist was "born again" before he was born! [...] It is clear, therefore, that God is able to save infants in an unusual way, apart from their hearing and understanding the gospel, by bringing regeneration to them very early, sometimes even before birth.5

He cautions against taking this too far, but finds this as evidence that infants who die may be saved:

We must, however, affirm very clearly that this is not the usual way for God to save people.  Salvation usually occurs when someone hears and understands the gospel and then places trust in Christ.  But in unusual cases like John the Baptist, God brought salvation before this understanding.  And this leads us to conclude that it certainly is possible that God would also do this where he knows the infant will die before hearing the gospel.5

Summary
In summary, these two charismatic theologians believe in original sin, and thus that judgment is due to all men because all men have sinful natures and act sinfully.  However, they suggest that provision may be made for children who die in infancy.  One could speculate, based on this reasoning, that similar provision might extend to the mentally disabled, but neither author addresses that situation.  But extending this logic to mean salvation for the unreached peoples of the world is certainly outside the teaching of these two theologians.

References:

Williams, Theology Q and A, page 31 (See also Renewal Theology, 1: chapter 11, "The Effects of Sin.")
Williams, Renewal Theology, I-272.
Grudem, Systematic Theology, ch. 7, p122.
Williams, Theology Q and A, page 32
Grudem, Systematic Theology, ch. 24, p500.


Why does Catholic Church (and possibly some other denominations) approve natural family planning and condemn different kinds of contraception? That's one thing that bothers me. While I agree that using means of birth control that affect embryo is simply wrong in the terms of morality, I cannot tell any difference between natural family planning and different kinds of contraception (as mentioned in the title).

I know the argumentation that the first mentioned way is consistent with nature, while the other one is contradictory with characteristics of the true act of love. However, that doesn't appear to be really convincing to me. After all, preventing yourself from having sex in certain period of life also appears to be not consistent with nature - after all, it's act of human will (I'm not saying it's wrong, it just appears to be not different from other means of contraception).

Also, I think that the intention of the action is most important factor of moral evaluation of it. Nevertheless, both the outcome and intention of using contraception in both mentioned cases are the same - partners don't want to have baby, and so it happens, though no embryo dies.

Also, some people indicate that using, so to say, "artificial" contraception makes people more liberal in their love life. Actually, I'd dispute with that. After all, it's not impossible that individuals would be able to "control" themselves but just not bother with natural method of family planning.

To sum up, I wanted to indicate that for me there's no actual difference between natural and non-natural birth control (excluding all the means causing early miscarriage). Can anyone tell me real difference between those two that could cause varying moral evaluation of these?

Thank you in advance for all the answers.

I will try to answer the question entirely from a Catholic perspective, as that seems to be what the question demands.

The classic determination of a moral act has three parts (CCC 1749-1761):

Is the act intrinsically immoral --- which is to say, wrong in every circumstance --- by its very nature?
Is the intention good, or bad?
Would the circumstances surrounding the moral act make it have an evil result?

A moral act (which is to say, an act in which a human has the freedom to act one way or another) must pass those 3 tests above to make it a moral action.

Now, let's compare non-abortifacient artificial contraception and Natural Family Planning in regards to the tests above.  I add the proviso that the artificial contraception be non-abortifacient because otherwise we are talking about abortion (even if early abortion), and such act is fairly equated to murder of the innocent (CCC 2270-2275): an intrinsic evil of its own.  It goes without saying that we are assuming any sexual intercourse takes place within marriage in both cases, or else we are talking about fornication, which immediately fails the third requirement (CCC 2353).

In what follows, see (CCC 2366-2370)

Non-abortifacient artificial contraception fails the first test.  By its very nature artificial contraception (even when it doesn't kill the unborn) is a contradictory act.  On the one hand, the sexual act is supposed to be (among other things) a total self-giving of spouses to each other, and on the other hand, the contraceptive symbolism (and intended effect) is to withhold from each other an integral part of themselves: their fecundity --- whether abundant or slim.  In a sense it is very much like deception.  One would have strong objections to a man pretending to be someone else in order to marry a woman (and vice-verse)  --- it would go against the very nature of marriage that requires honesty and trust.

On the other hand, Natural Family Planning (refraining from having sexual intimacy at times) does not fail this test.  There is no moral requirement that a couple have sex every waking moment of their lives.  And in fact, there are circumstances when they must not have sexual intimacy (for instance, after surgery in their nether regions).  And engaging in Natural Family Planning does not engage in the double-speak that contraceptive sex does: it is the difference between lying and remaining silent (See esp. CCC 2370).  While we are called to always tell the truth, we are not always called to speak.

Of course, we are sometimes called to speak, and tell the truth.  Analogously, God calls us to "be fruitful and multiply".  Here is where we talk about intentions (the second requirement), which gets at the heart of the question.  After all, aren't both methods (non-abortifacient artificial contraception and Natural Family Planning) intending to avoid children?  And isn't that against God's will for humans stamped in their reproductive nature --- whichever method you use?

To be sure, there is much truth in these questions.  If there was not the positive call from God to reproduce, one might be able to respond that both methods have the same ends, but one uses intrinsically flawed means of accomplishment, while the other uses entirely natural means.  That difference is not trivial, of course, and would suffice as an answer if there was not the positive command from God to "be fruitful and multiply".  However, we are called to reproduce.  For now, let me say this: if someone's use of Natural Family Planning has as its goal the avoidance of children for the sake of not having any children, then that person is clearly doing violence to one of the purposes of matrimony (which is to obey the command to "multiply"), and as such has failed the second requirement of a moral act by having the wrong intention.  Which is to say, Natural Family Planning is not "intrinsically moral" or "intrinsically good" (always right).

But how can it be right at all?  Isn't the command to be "fruitful and multiply" definitive and absolute?  Shouldn't the mandate be to find the best time for procreation every month and make sure to have sex during those times (whether or not on other times as well)?

Well, but we have been given other mandates from God on the subject of marriage.  One of them is, for example, to care well for the children we do have.  In other words, the command of God to "be fruitful and multiply" would not be fulfilled very well at all if we left our children to fend for themselves once we gave them birth.  Part of the command is that we must do our best to make sure our children have a good chance of surviving in this world.  And that may mean that we must have less children than we are physically able to have in order to be able to feed and care for the ones we do have.

Among other things, we are also called to respect our spouses bodies, for instance, and we must not engage in sexual intimacy when our wife is likely to be fecund if she is physically unable to handle the pregnancy.

In other words, we must be responsible with the gift of fecundity we are given (CCC 2367-2368), and take into account all other commandments from God.  But we must have the right intentions.  An avoidance of children must be motivated not by the wish not to have to sacrifice --- we are all called to sacrifice, just as Jesus sacrificed Himself --- our affluent lives, or by the wish to make all procreation impossible, or by selfish reasons, but must instead be "in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood" (CCC 2370).  Our parenthood must be both responsible and generous, and never selfish.  To take one instance, one must not forgo having a child because one really wants a boat.

Okay, but isn't it possible to have this lofty (and very worthy) aims in mind when one uses non-abortifacient artificial contraception to avoid children?  Yes!  In regards to intentions, the intention to avoid children is the same whether one uses non-abortifacient artificial contraception or Natural Family Planing, and in both cases the intentions can be worthy and moral, or immoral.  However, assuming morally acceptable intentions, the question of means now shows up again.  Whereas it is quite natural to use Natural Family Planning to space one's children, non-abortifacient artificial contraception is intrinsically evil because, by its very nature, it lies in a very fundamental way which is entirely contradictory to the essence of matrimony.

Finally, circumstances.  Some actions which may be otherwise moral, may end up becoming immoral depending on the circumstances.  A classic example of this might be the following: while it is morally good to attend Church on Sundays, it might not be moral to do so while in a foreign country that actively persecutes Christians if by doing so the attention of the authorities would be called to an underground group of Christians in hiding.  In other words, consequences of an action are evaluated here.  I have already included some language of circumstances above in my discussion of intentions.  As far as Natural Family Planning goes, its morality might change or might be different if talking about a well-to-do family compared to a poor family, or if talking about a young and healthy couple compared to an elderly or not so healthy couple, or if talking about a large family compared to a small family.  The devil here is in the details (and the moralist).  In any case, the circumstances do not ever change the nature of an intrinsically evil act to a morally acceptable one (CCC 1754).  They might lessen the moral culpability of an evil act, but the action remains as evil as ever.  They might also increase the moral culpability of an evil act (lying about one's finances is less problematic when doing it to your friend than to the court, for instance).  Similarly, circumstances can also increase or diminish the moral worthiness of a moral act (volunteering for the army would be more courageous in times of war than in times of peace, for instance).  In any case, there are no circumstances in which non-abortifacient artificial contraception becomes a good act (that is the meaning of intrinsic evil, after all).

Well, that was too long.  I wonder how many will read it all the way through?


Which is the book in the Protestant Bible containing most quotes of verses from other Bible books? It'd be just interesting to know this as a fact. Also, to have an objective criteria, what will be the answer if we consider the percentage of verses in the corresponding book that are quotes(instead of the number). The later will allow to compare short and long books in this regard.

The closest answer that I could find regarding quotes is from research using a compilation of Old Testament quotes in the New Testament (in English). This shows Romans (at 48), followed by Hebrews (at 41), and then Matthew at 35.

To state it as percentages, Hebrews would have the highest percentage, as it has only 303 verses. It's at 14%, followed by Romans at 11%, then by Matthew at 3%.

However, there are places where the Old Testament books quote other Old Testament books, and similarly where the New Testament quotes New Testament books.

The New Testament quotes within itself only a couple of times, according to this research by Don Stewart. Peter quotes Paul, and Paul quotes Luke, but these two do not change the rankings of most quotes within a book as provided by the first resource mentioned. Similarly, there are few places where the Old Testament quotes itself, such as Isaiah quoting Deuteronomy, but these smaller numbers are not enough to overcome the higher counts of New Testament books quoting Old Testament books.

Besides these online resources, also check out The Ultimate Cross-Reference Treasury, Prepared by Jerome H. Smith (Copyright © 2016 by Jerome H. Smith)


What spirit(s) is referred to in 1 John 4? 1 John 4:1-6 (NIV):

  Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to
  see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone
  out into the world. 2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God:
  Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh
  is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not
  from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard
  is coming and even now is already in the world.

  4 You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the
  one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. 5 They
  are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the
  world, and the world listens to them. 6 We are from God, and whoever
  knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen
  to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit
  of falsehood.

What spirit is being referred to here? Is this the collective spirit of the world vs. the spirit of God? Is this a reference to demons vs. angelic messengers of truth? Or is this the spirit of man vs. true prophets?

Which scriptures can be compared in the proper context to show the accurate meaning of this passage?

In verses 1–3, John speaks first of the "spirit of God VS the "spirit of antichrist".  In verses 4–6 he speaks of the "spirit of truth" VS the "spirit of falsehood" ("error" in KJV). These are the same two spirits; the restating of same concept in different terms is common in OT and NT. So the spirit of God is the spirit of truth, and the spirit of antichrist is the spirit of falsehood.  In other places, the devil/Lucifer is referred to as the father of lies:
John 8:44
      Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

So yes, you could say that the devil (and his demons, if you believe in such) have the spirit of lies.


Can one be baptized and become a Catholic if they don't believe in every particular Catholic dogma? Can one be baptized and become a Catholic if they don't believe in every particular Catholic dogma?

I personally am interested in being a Catholic, i.e., being baptized by a Catholic priest, being confirmed, and so forth. However, there are some dogmas that, even after serious biblical study, I am hesitant to believe in.

After responses/ comments from a few members, I narrowed these dogmas to the following:

Perpetual virginity
Immaculate conception
Assumption of Mary

(While I did not include #2-3 in the original post, I am including them in my revision so that further clarification can be accomplished on this matter. The original post was not intended to include each dogma I did not believe in, but rather, to give a few examples.)

Originally, I said that I did not believe that one was required to pray to Mary and the saints. As @AndrewLeach responded,

  You present that praying to Mary and to the Saints are necessary. It's not necessary for salvation to pray to them, merely to accept that they are there if required... However, it is necessary to accept that the Saints are there if required, and that their prayers are effective.

I should clarify that I have no problem with people praying to the saints and/ or Mary, if they wish. I don't feel it is necessary, for anything, but as long as I myself am never compelled to do so, I have no problem if others do.

It seems that the liturgy of the Penitential Rite has the following statement:

  I confess to almighty God,
  and to you, my brothers and sisters,
  that I have sinned through my own fault,
  in my thoughts and in my words,
  in what I have done,
  and in what I have failed to do;
  and I ask blessed Mary, ever virgin,
  all the angels and saints,
  and you, my brothers and sisters,
  to pray for me to the Lord, our God.

So, is one required to recite this prayer during Mass, where he/ she is basically beseeching or praying to Mary and the saints?

All that being said, and this is the primary question, can I still become a Catholic if I do not believe in (accept) those particular dogmas?

You asked about "every particular Catholic dogma." I think there are many good Catholics who, not being theologians, don't even know what all the particular dogmas of the Catholic Church are, and who therefore don't explicitly believe them. But they implicitly believe them, in the sense that (1) they believe that the Catholic Church has received from Christ the authority to declare certain doctrines as being revealed by God and (2) they would therefore believe any of these revealed doctrines if they were informed about them.  What is incompatible with Catholicism is to deny a doctrine even though one knows that the Church has declared it to be divinely revealed.  That's heresy and would put one outside the Church (even though one's baptism would remain valid).


According to Jehovah's Witnesses and Unitarians and all who deny that Jesus is the Almighty God, how can He be in you and live in you? Colossians 1:26-27: "the mystery which has been hidden from the past ages and generations; but has now been manifested to His saints. To who God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory."

How can you fellowship with someone who is NOT with (or in) you, and how can he be with (or in) you if he is not God? Jeremiah 17:10, "I, the Lord, search the heart, I test the mind. Even to give to each man according to his ways, According to the results of his deeds.
The Apostle John at Revelation 2:23 excerpts the words from Jeremiah 17:10 and attributes them to the Lord Jesus Christ when He says, "I am He who searches the minds and hearts; and I will give each one of you according to your deeds."
John 14:23 says God the Father and Jesus Christ will make their ABODE with him." Romans 5:5 says of the Holy Spirit, "and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out WITHIN OUR HEARTS through the Holy Spirit who was given to us."
So in summary, if Jesus Christ is not God how is it He can fellowship with billions of other peoples scattered throughout time and space?

The New World Translation does away with any need for Jehovah’s Witnesses to answer the question you raise by employing the simple expedience of altering the words in these Bible verses:

Colossians 1:26-28 NWT: “the sacred secret that was hidden from the past system of things and from the past generations.  But now it has been made manifest to his holy ones, to whom God has been pleased to make known what are the glorious riches of this sacred secret in union with you, the hope of his glory.  He is the one we are publicizing, admonishing every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man complete in union with Christ.”

It is worth noting that the New World Translation has changed virtually every verse that says “in me” or “in us” or “in them” to say “in union with me” or “in union with us” or “in union with them” (John 14:10, 11, 20; John 17:21, 22, 23).
However, there is no basis for translating the Greek text to read "in union with".  I refer you to this question and the two answers that relate to this: https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/59807/what-is-the-basis-for-translating-colossians-127-28-to-in-union-with-christ-a
In other words, the New World Translation does not say that Jesus dwells IN the believer, only that the believer is IN UNION WITH Christ.  This is not physical but is a spiritual relationship.

Romans 5:5 NWT: “the love of God has been poured out into our hearts through the holy spirit, which was given us.”

Likewise, the holy spirit is not a “who” but is a “which”.  Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that the holy spirit is God’s power in action, his active force. That is why they never show holy spirit as Holy Spirit.
John 14:23 NWT: In answer Jesus said to him: “If anyone loves me, he will observe my word, and my Father will love him, and we shall come to him and make our abode with him.”  This is taken to mean that those who love and obey Jesus will enjoy a close spiritual relationship with Jehovah and with Jesus.  It is not a literal, physical abode within the believer.

Question: What precious relationships are open to the anointed and to the “other sheep”?
10 Later that night, in answer to a question put to him by the faithful apostle Judas (Thaddaeus), Jesus said: “If anyone loves me, he will observe my word, and my Father will love him, and we shall come to him and make our abode with him.” (John 14:22, 23) Even while still on earth, anointed Christians, called to reign with Christ in heaven, have a particularly close relationship with Jehovah and with his Son. (John 15:15; 16:27; 17:22; Hebrews 3:1; 1 John 3:2, 24) But their “other sheep” companions, whose hope is to live forever on earth, also have a precious relationship with their “one shepherd,” Jesus Christ, and with their God, Jehovah, provided they prove to be obedient.  Source: https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/w20020201/Are-You-Among-Those-Loved-by-God/

The New World Translation agrees that it is Jehovah speaking in Jeremiah 17:10 and it is the Son of God speaking in Revelation 2:23.  However, they do not understand this to mean that Jehovah and Jesus are one and the same being.  Jesus (a created being and so perceived as a little god) is subordinate to Jehovah (the only big God) according to John 1:1 in the New World Translation. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus imitates his Father and is given authority by his Father to act.

John 5:19-24 NWT: The Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father doing...  For the Father judges no one at all, but he has committed all the judging to the Son.”

According to Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jesus can only ever do anything THROUGH the Father who created him.


What is the archaeological evidence for the events in the Book of Mormon? I have read several books that identify archaeological evidence in support of hundreds and hundreds of biblical places, cultures, and historical events.  What is the archaeological evidence for the events in the Book of Mormon?

Depending on the scope of this question, it can be very difficult to give any satisfactory answer to.  Archaeology primarily concerns itself with artifacts that have been left behind from ancient days, whereas the Book of Mormon deliberately avoids going into too much detail on the culture of its people and explaining details that might aid archaeological research, preferring to focus on more sacred matters.  Also, it appears that their preferred method of construction was in wood, which doesn't lend itself well to the generation of archaeological ruins:

From Helaman chapter 3:

  3 And it came to pass in the forty and sixth [year], ... there were an exceedingly great many who departed out of the land of Zarahemla, and went forth unto the land northward to inherit the land.

  ...

  7 And there being but little timber upon the face of the land, nevertheless the people who went forth became exceedingly expert in the working of cement; therefore they did build houses of cement, in the which they did dwell.

  ...

  9 And the people who were in the land northward did dwell in tents, and in houses of cement, and they did suffer whatsoever tree should spring up upon the face of the land that it should grow up, that in time they might have timber to build their houses, yea, their cities, and their temples, and their synagogues, and their sanctuaries, and all manner of their buildings.

  10 And it came to pass as timber was exceedingly scarce in the land northward, they did send forth much by the way of shipping.

  11 And thus they did enable the people in the land northward that they might build many cities, both of wood and of cement.

So we see that they considered timber to be the preferred method of construction.  When it was unavailable, they developed new techniques for constructing houses and buildings of cement, and eventually became "exceedingly expert in the working of cement," but still placed a high value on wood as a construction material.  (Having lived in South America, where many modern homes are built of cement and bricks, I can certainly understand this attitude.  Cement is a rather good conductor of heat, which is an undesirable quality at low latitudes!)

The cement settlements are interesting.  This was once derided as a hopeless anachronism in the Book of Mormon: the working of cement was an Old World art that never existed in pre-Colombian America! Right up until the mid-twentieth century, that is, when archaeologists started finding cement settlements in the vicinity of modern-day Mexico City, built with an extremely high degree of skill ("exceedingly expert") dating back to approximately the same time as the Book of Mormon states that these colonists moved in. (As reported in Concrete Evidence for the Book of Mormon.)

However, this settlement is an exception rather than a general rule.  The people in question preferred construction in wood or simply living in tents, neither of which generates much in the way of ruins.  Also, Book of Mormon archaeology is at a second disadvantage when compared to Biblical archaeology: on the Biblical side, we know exactly where to start looking!  Modern-day Jerusalem is located on the side of the same mountain it's been on since at least the days of Melchizedek, to give just one example.

It will not be surprising, if you understand this, to hear that much of the truly interesting archaeological and historical evidence to arise in support of the Book of Mormon actually comes from discoveries in the Old World.  To continue the earlier theme of Book of Mormon details once thought to be ridiculous, the book mentions two different men by the name of Alma.  This was once held up as proof of Joseph Smith's hopeless inexperience: Alma is a Latin name, not a Jewish name, and a feminine Latin name at that!

...until the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, more than a century after the publication of the Book of Mormon, that is. One of the scrolls contains a reference to one "Alma, son of Judah." Oops.

Then we have the Lachish Letters, a group of clay tablets found in the ruins of an ancient Jewish city, dating back to just a few years after the start of the Book of Mormon. They describe several non-Biblical details of the local political climate which fit hand-in-hand with the corresponding Book of Mormon narrative.  LDS scholar Hugh Nibley wrote a very detailed article on the letters, summarizing it at the end with 18 points of remarkable similarity between the two, and concluding that

  Other parallels may be added to taste, but this should be enough to show that Joseph Smith was either extravagantly lucky in the opening episodes of his Book of Mormon—that should be demonstrated by computer—or else he had help from someone who knew a great deal.

(Two Shots in the Dark, first half)

Entire volumes have been written, and then, sadly, largely ignored, regarding the authenticity of the introductory chapters of the Book of Mormon, the ones that deal with travels in the Old World.  To give just one example which is freely available online, see Lehi in the Desert, again by Dr. Nibley.  He examines cultural details, religious and dream imagery, historical background, and even the names used, and shows that it is all remarkably consistent with the time and place it purports to originate from.

Stronger than any external evidence for or against the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, though, is internal evidence.  There is a word for a literary work that claims a certain authorship but does not actually originate the way it claims to: forgery.  And there are well-established tools and techniques for the detection of literary forgery, and they do not require the support of external evidence.  But strangely enough, these formal methods don't tend to get applied in adversarial analyses of the Book of Mormon.

On the surface of it, there's no good reason not to; the Book of Mormon is a forger's nightmare!  A fairly large work, claiming to be historical in nature, disseminated as widely as possible and inviting all to read and critically examine it?  What is the forger thinking?!?  This violates every rule of producing a successful forgery!  But the two most important principles in the detection of literary forger tend to be consistently ignored:

Begin with the assumption that the work is genuine, and
no external evidence is required to expose a forgery of any significant size; internal inconsistencies alone will do that every time.

When the formal, scientific techniques for detecting forgery are applied to the Book of Mormon, instead of emotionally-driven attempts to reach a predetermined conclusion, the book is shown to be genuine. (Dr. Hugh Nibley, New Approaches to Book of Mormon Study)

I could go on, (and on and on and on; as I said before, there have been entire volumes written on the subject,) but this answer is getting to be too long as it is.  Suffice it to say that a large corpus of evidence exists which, while not enough to conclusively prove the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, (they haven't even managed to do that with the Bible, so it would be unfair to hold another work that claims to be scripture to such a high standard,) definitely demonstrates that the book is worthy of serious attention and consideration.


How do Creationist Christians respond to the evidence for Evolution? This is a question for people who believe in the creation.

One point considered a serious proof of evolution is the scientific method of carbon dating. As per this method, humans haven't existed from the beginning of the creation of the earth (as per age of discovered human skeletons). However many other species like Apes and have existed before human beings and a species whose skeleton looks partly ape and partly human has been discovered, which existed before humans as well. Humans began to appear around the same time this species seemed to go extinct. Isn't this a proof for evolution? Or at least a proof that creationism does not exist? (Since Humans and animals were created within a span of 7 days according to the bible.)

In what ways do creationist Christians generally handle these claims?

Quite frankly, there are several viewpoints on this.  There is no one answer to your question.

Some Christians see evolution as a complete non-issue (but you asked specifically about creationists, so this group is outside of the scope of our desired answer).
Some hold what are sometimes called "compromise positions" by young-earth creationists, such as the Day-Age theory or the Gap Theory.  Each of these theories explains an old earth while allowing for a semi-literal interpretation of the Genesis account:  The Gap Theory by indicating that there's a "gap" between creation and Genesis and the Day-Age theory by explaining the days in Genesis as "time periods" rather than literal days.
Others - literal young-earth creationists see flaws in the arguments and have specific arguments about the accuracy of the methods used to date the universe as old, and point to other evidences that could indicate a young earth.

To answer this fully would be too big an answer for this forum, but if you're really interested in how young earth creationists explain these things, a good resource you might consider is: http://www.icr.org (The Institute for Creation Research)

They also have articles that explain the gap and day-age theories, but they absolutely hold to the young-earth creationist view.

As for the  partly man/partly ape skeletons, both the young and old earth creationist camps happily point to several examples of "human ancestors" that turned out to be mistaken identity or outright fraud.  (Nebraska man, Java Man, and Piltdown man all come to mind off  the top of my head.)  They ask, "If these were accepted as human ancestors, and have been shown to be false, why would we automatically assume that the current "ancestors" are to be trusted."

But again, there's a range of beliefs, and not all creationists agree on every specific point or example.


Do Catholics believe that Jesus' time in the wilderness was meant as an allegory? Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.” Matthew 4:1-3

Do Catholics believe that Jesus' time in the wilderness was meant as an allegory? Or did this story actually happen?

And if it happened, did the Apostles witness it? Or did Jesus retell this story to Matthew, who then later retold it in his Gospel?

Catholics believe in the four senses of Scripture and that all Scripture should be interpreted, firstly by the literal sense (not literalistic, as in every must be taken as having literally happened).  Allegory is only one of the spiritual senses of Scripture.  See the reference to the Catechism beginning in paragraph 101.  You may want to continue reading in the catechism to get a more developed idea of the four senses of Scripture.

  116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.” [St. Thomas Aquinas, S Th I, 1, 10, ad I]
  117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God's plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs. 1. the allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ's victory and also of Christian Baptism. [Cf. I Cor 10:2] 2. the moral sense. the events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”. [I Cor 10:11; cf. Heb 3:1 - 4:11] 3. the anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem. [Cf. Rev 21:1 - 22:5]


What are the NIV cross-references? Where do they come from? In my NIV Bible I see tiny letters inside the text and references to other passages in the margins. Some of these are tremendously helpful, some seem only to relate by the use of one word.

Where do these cross-references come from, did they originate with the authors of the NIV or are they from some older source? On what basis did the creators of this system decide that passage A should be related to passage B? Do we know the intention of the authors for how they should be used?

Before examining the New International Version use of cross-references, here is a brief look at the history behind Bible cross-references.

  “One of the fundamental principles of Protestant biblical interpretation is that "Scripture is its own best interpreter." Luther expressed this principle with the words, Scriptura sui ipsius interpres ("Scripture is its own expositor"), and it was summed up by the authors of the Westminster Confession thus: "The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture ... it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly." For this reason the most important feature of any edition of the Bible (aside from the quality of the translation itself) is the system of cross-references provided in the margin, which helps the reader to find out the meaning of any hard place by "comparing spiritual things with spiritual" (1 Cor 2:13). A good set of cross-references, when used diligently and with intelligence, will make much commentary unnecessary.”  Source: http://www.bible-researcher.com/cross-references.html

  William Carpenter in the preface to his work Scientia Biblica from 1825 states: “The first collection of parallel passages the editor believes to have been that published with the third edition of Tyndale’s Testament, in 1534. Coverdale’s Bible, also, the first edition of which appeared in 1535, has a few marginal references. These were augmented and improved in the various editions of the Bible and New Testament, which were published subsequently to that time: the first edition of the present “Authorized Version” containing nine thousand references (Preface, p. vi)...  In 1683, the “Authorized Version” was corrected, and many additional parallel texts were added by Dr. Scattergood; and in 1690, Samuel Clark published “The Holy Bible, containing the Old Testament and the New, with Annotations and Parallel Scriptures,” &c. In the Preface to this edition of the Scriptures, the Editor states that he took a great deal of pains in collecting parallel texts, and that not only for words and phrases, but for sense and matter.  Source: http://www.realbiblestudy.com/?p=91

From this, we can see how marginal notes and references can be traced back to 1534 and how, over time, they have been expanded.  With regard to how the NIV uses cross-references, we need look no further than the Introduction pages to the NIV Study Bible.  It has a cross-reference system of 100,000 entries.  The 1985 edition of the NIV Study Bible says this:

  “The cross-reference system, developed over many years by June Gunden, John R. Kohlenberger III (OT) and Donald H. Madvig (NT), can be used to explore concepts, as well as specific words.”

Pages xvi and xvii in my 2000 edition of the NIV Study Bible explain how the cross-reference system works.  Because this material is copyright, I am not at liberty to reproduce what it says, but I did find an on-line article which was published with the permission of Zondervan Publishing House.

http://helpmewithbiblestudy.org/13reference/study_NIVStudyBible.aspx#sthash.YyZaZbiy.dpbs

The intentions of the Committee on Bible Translation for the NIV Study Bible are explained in the Preface and your other questions about how cross-references should be used are explained in the Introduction pages.  I hope you find this helpful.


Has T. D. Jakes clarified what he believes about the Trinity? T. D. Jakes is a popular American pastor and speaker who was ordained within Oneness Pentecostalism, a modern modalist group which denies the Trinity.

Jakes has in recent times moved towards Trinitarian Christianity. Wikipedia records that in 2012 he affirmed the trinity, but "did not affirm the eternality of the individual persons."

Jakes has been invited to popular Protestant events such as the Hillsong Conference. His lack of clarity on whether he fully endorses the doctrine of the Trinity has concerned many people (and led them to say that his conference hosts have lacked discernment.)

Has Jakes clarified since 2012 whether or not he fully endorses and believes in the Trinity as defined in the Nicene, Athanasian, and/or Chalcedonian creeds?

No. It seems that as of this writing (May 2017) his last attempt to publicly clarify his doctrine of God was the 2012 interview you refer to. If you Google some combination of TD Jakes trinity, you'll only find discussions of that interview, or of his 2000 Christianity Today article, or of his affiliations with Oneness Pentecostalism.

The 2012 interview in question sparked a major controversy in the reformed evangelical blogosphere, with the general consensus (as represented in Justin Taylor's write-up) being that the interview itself was a mistake and that nothing had truly been clarified. A 2014 blog post by reformed Baptist Tim Challies (generally a good researcher) indicates no knowledge of any post-2012 trinitarian confession by Jakes. Jakes' church's belief statement, while not explicitly modalist, still shies away from trinitarian credal language and retains the use of the favored modalist term "manifestations" instead of "persons" to describe the Godhead. He is also vice-prelate of Higher Ground Always Abounding Assemblies, which is allegedly a Oneness Pentecostal organization.


Where do the names of books of Bible come from? Where does the name of each book come from?

(I am not a Christian and this should be treated like a novice question.)

The various books get their names in different ways.  Most of the Old Testament books are named for their theme.  For example, the book of Genesis tells of the beginning (or genesis) of the world, and human history.  The book of Exodus tells of the story of the Israelites' exodus out of Egypt.  Psalms and Proverbs, are collections of, respectively, psalms (songs) and proverbs (wise sayings).  The books of Samuel, Ruth, Job, and many others, tell the stories of the people after which they are named.

In the New Testament, there are three main naming conventions.  Many books are named after their authors, such as the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, along with a few other letters (also called Epistles), which are named after their authors, such as James, and First Peter and Second Peter (he wrote two letters that are in the Bible).

Some of the other books in the New Testament are also letters, and are named after the recipient.  First Corinithians and Second Corinthians are the first and second letters written to the church in Corinith, for instance.  And Romans is a letter written to the church in Rome.  First Timothy and Second Timothy are both letters written to Timothy (who was a church leader at the time).

And finally, a few of the New Testament books are also named after their theme.  Acts portrays the "acts of the Apostles", and Revelation is a revelation of new insight (although the exact theme of Revelation is somewhat of a disputed issue--some say it's a revelation about the future, others say it's historical in content).


Was Jesus an adherent to 'Sola Scriptura'? Adherents to Sola Scriptura basically believe that Scripture should be the foundation of all doctrine.  (NOTE: That is not to say that outside sources cannot be used to aide us in understanding the text - see here.)

Based on what we know about Jesus from Scripture, could Jesus be considered an adherent to this philosophy?

The answer is simply: No.
One way to prove it, is to take the verse where Jesus says:

"Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me." (Luke 10:16)

That means, that whatever the apostles say, is Jesus' teaching. Then we can take Paul's words to the Thessalonians in chapter 2 verse 15:

"So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter." (NIV)

This is saying to hold to the scriptures and oral teaching. One link that might prove helpful is here, asking: "Sola Scriptura vs. the Magisterium: What did Jesus Teach?". One that deals with just Sola Scriptura can be found here.

One link that might have an answer, says:

Did not Jesus say, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. . . ." [Matthew 28:19] Of course this admonishes them to teach; it says nothing about writing. And the Bible itself says nothing about it being the sole source of God’s revelation.

Anyways, that is just my opinion and it may be a little biased. One thing to think about, is that for the first couple hundred years, there was no "New Testament". The last of the gospels by John, was written by A.D 85 or later.

I agree with you that:

If a person teaches something contrary to Scripture, they are wrong.

But sometimes things may seem contrary and actually be true to each-other. Here is a link that explains some things that seem to contradict each-other in the bible, but just need a little explanation (I know that that is both sources from the bible, but it is basically the same).

And just to let you know, I'm not Roman Catholic.


Did King James have any words put into the book of Deuteronomy in the translation of the Bible? I have been told that there is a letter held by the University of St. Andrews, Scotland from King James telling the translators to include words against witchcraft; this being a follow-on from the persecution of those people who were pagans or followers of the dark arts. As a Christian and a firm believer that the Bible is the true word of God, I find it difficult to believe that what I have been told is right.
Therefore my question is this: Did King James ever tell those translating the Bible to include anything that was not in the original Hebrew OT or the Greek NT?

King James VI of Scotland (who later became King James I of England) tried to prove that witches existed and that the Bible said they must be killed.  James developed an obsession with witchcraft from an early age, blaming witches for the death of his mother, Mary Queen of Scots.  In 1597 he published a book that he had written on the subject of witchcraft, his Daemonologie.  After the union of the Scottish and English crowns in 1653, James’ obsession with witches spread into England.  As a result, many women were put on trial, tortured and executed.  More information here: Daemonologie.
He used Exodus 22:18 as justification for his witch-hunts and executions: “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.” (KJV)
The NIV reads: “Do not allow a sorceress to live”.
A female sorcerer is a witch, a female practiser of magic, according to various dictionaries.   The male version would be a wizard.
As for tampering with the book of Deuteronomy 18:10-11, I doubt there is any evidence to support the claim that King James wanted “to include words against witchcraft.”  Below is the wording from the King James Version, followed by the New International Version translation:

There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. (KJV)

Let no-one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practises divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. (NIV)

The KJV says “a witch” while the NIV says “engages in witchcraft”.  Someone who engages in witchcraft is a witch.
I have no idea whether St. Andrews University has a letter from King James asking for the Bible to be changed with regard to witchcraft and witches.  Unfortunately, because of the Covid-19 pandemic, I doubt any enquiry about that would be dealt with anytime soon.  I think the University is in lockdown.
Here is the link to St. Andrews University Library: https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/library/
The phone number (in the U.K.) is 01334 462331


Why do Baptists believe in the autonomy of local congregations? Why do Baptists reject the idea of a central authority and instead place authority in the local congregations? Does this have a biblical basis or is it a result of past conflict with authority figures?

There are two concepts that are important to understand.  How they interact show directly how this works:
Sola Scriptura
The idea of sola scriptura is that the Bible is the highest authority.  Anyone and everyone (who can read) has direct access to the final word of God.  If someone is saying something that isn't in line with the Bible, then they are clearly not from God.
Priesthood of All Believers
Essentially, every believer in Christ has the authority to preach, interpret the Bible, and determine doctrine (providing it falls in line with the Bible, of course).  Given this, the authority of Christianity lies directly with the believers in Christ, not with a church per se--neither a local congregation, nor a central authority.  Each person becomes responsible for his/her own beliefs.
Reaction!!
Now, combine those two ideas together and you get an emotional, fiery reaction:  All central authority crumbles, since each individual believer has the authority to reject or accept another person's word.  Furthermore, the only way to rebuke another believer to bring them in line with your way of thinking is using the Bible--a book that can be twisted, bent, confused, and misconstrued--all in the name of personal exegesis.
Local Congregations
As the dust settles, believers start to realize that there needs to be a church--a gathering place for others who share their beliefs--and a preacher--someone who can comfort, guide, and instruct them when they need answers.
Each church is built on these ideas: a place to gather for corporate worship, lead by someone to help guide, instruct, and lead the people.  When church leaders start to get off track, they are either let go, or the church falls apart.  The only cohesion being the Word of God and the beliefs established by the members of the congregation.
Authority of the Local Church
Finally, as all men do, the members of the congregation begin to stray.  Matthew 18:15-17 has given authority to believers to attempt to steer each other in the right direction.  If that doesn't work, some authority has been given to the church itself to guide members to right thinking: but which church?  A local church?  A central church?
Unfortunately, this passage (as with all) is open to interpretation; and schisms between believers throughout history have determined this to be (for their convenience, I suspect) authority of the local church, rather than a central authority.  That means the each local church has the ability to reject its own members.
However, if there are enough believers (which agree with the errant way) to form a new church, a new church is formed and a split occurs, dragging part of a congregation from one church (one authority) to another.
Summary
The doctrines of Sola Scriptura and the Priesthood of All Believers have caused each person to have the authority to reject or accept any given spiritual authority.  Churches band together on common beliefs for corporate worship, instruction, and support.  However, their cohesion is purely based on individual support of the church.
Ultimately, the authority is not with the local church as much as it is with the believers within that church.  Each church rises and falls on the beliefs established by its members.  It's these two doctrines that are the source of this "authority" of the local church (in a round-about way).


The attitude of animals before and after fall According to the verse below I believe this is how it was in the garden of eden, and how it should be

  Isaiah 11:6

  The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie
  down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling
  together; and a little child shall lead them.

Did the behaviour of animals to man and each other changed after the fall of man and as a result of the fall of  man?

Or were they influenced by our new nature and attitudes? Or have they been like they were from the beginning?

If they have changed, what are the obvious changes?

The usual disclaimer - this is the Young-Earth Creationist, Biblical Literal view, which is not the only view out there.

Many Creationists, including Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, and others believe and teach that the relationship between man and animals was changed directly by God after the Flood.

Before the Flood, man was vegetarian only:

  Genesis 1:29-30 (KJV)

  29 And God said, “See, I have given you every
  herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every
  tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.

  30 Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to
  everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have
  given every green herb for food”; and it was so.

but after the Flood, man became omnivores.

  Genesis 9: 1-3 (KJV)

  1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful,
  and multiply, and replenish the earth.

  2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast
  of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth
  upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are
  they delivered.

  3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the
  green herb have I given you all things.

As to when the animals became dangerous to each other, the Bible doesn't specify.  Some suppose it was after the banishment from the Garden of Eden, some speculate that it was at the same time the relationship between man and animals changed in Genesis 3.  But Scripture doesn't say for sure.

Answers in Genesis interprets Genesis 1:29-30 as stating that man and animals were all vegetarian, which does appear to be the case from a plain literal reading of the verses.  Kent Hovind claims the same thing.  So they would naturally assume that animals became meat-eaters after the Flood as well.


Are there multiple levels to Heaven, for different levels of reward? 1 Corinthians 15:39-41 (KJV)
39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. 40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

Many people talk about Heaven and Hell as singular nouns; however, it doesn't seem to make sense that everyone will receive the same reward.
Some people are more righteous than others. Some people live good, honorable lives and help others, but they don't give as much to the kingdom of God as someone else might.
This verse seems to suggest that there are different levels of glory (sun, moon, stars).
Are we to understand that there are separate levels of glory? If not, what are we to understand by this passage?

This answer is the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (the "Mormon" Church).

There are more than two places people ultimately end up after judgement.  There are three Degrees of Glory (and there is Outer Darkness, see next section).  The three degrees of glory (in descending order of glory) are the Celestial kingdom (compared to the sun), the Terrestrial kingdom (compared to the moon), and the Telestial kingdom (compared to the stars).

Life in each of the Terrestrial and Telestial kingdoms is better than this life, but neither is as good as life in the Celestial kingdom.  In the Celestial kingdom, people can live with God and their family (meaning the people in their family in this life).

Most people on earth will end up in one of these degrees of glory.  Even most people guilty of some terrible and despicable things and not repented of them will.

Ending up in Outer Darkness takes something that most people on earth are not capable of: rebelling against God after knowing (not only having faith) of the truth of the gospel.  The vast majority of people, including me, do not.  If you have any wonders about if you do, you don't.

Satan will end up in outer darkness for his wilful rebellion against God with such a knowledge.

LDS Scriptural Ref:

D&C 76:50-70 - Description of "Kingdoms of Glory"
D&C 132:26-27 - 'blasphemy against the Holy Ghost'


According to Lutherans, what is the Kingdom of God? In a conversation with a United States veteran, I was intrigued when his response to Luke 4:5, 6 was that the United States is not included among the "kingdoms of the inhabited earth" because the USA is of the Kingdom of God. Therefore, the Devil has no authority over the United States.

Is this consistent with Lutheran theology? What do Lutherans believe is the Kingdom of God, and what effect does the Kingdom of God have on today's governments?

This is what the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, has to say about the Kingdom of God:

Kingdom of God: Term prominent in proclamation of John the Baptist, Jesus, and apostles; evidently synonymous with “kingdom of heaven.” Formerly it was taken for granted that “kingdom of God” is equivalent to “Christian ch.”; contemporary scholars hold that “kingdom” usually means dominion or rule, and that only in a derived way, by figure of speech, does it in some passages designate subjects in God's kingdom. When Jesus said that the kingdom of God had come near (Mk 1:15), he announced that God was, through the Messiah, laying the foundation for His gracious rule in human hearts. This rule presupposes that forgiveness of sins has been procured and that people accept it in faith. Where there is such acceptance, God has entered the heart and governs human thoughts and actions. Those who heard the message of John and of Christ were informed that God was preparing something special, that the fullness of the time had come (Gl 4:4), and that the plan of God for man's salvation was now to be carried out. The term did not point to an external kingdom like that of David or Solomon or the Roman Empire, but to something spiritual, the gentle rule of God through the Holy Spirit in the hearts of men. Passages which speak of the rule of God include Mt 12:28; Mk 4:11; Lk 9:27; 11:20. Passages which speak of the sum total of the subjects include Mt 13:41; 16:19. The kingdom is at times spoken of as a future blessing (Mt 7:21; 8:11), at times as a present reality (Lk 16:16; 17:20; Jn 3:3–5). It should be our heart's desire to be under the gracious rule of God (Mt 13:44–46).

This is what the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has to say about politics, earthly princes, and ‘Faith in the Left-Hand Kingdom’:

[2] The familiar Lutheran distinction between the two kingdoms is useful here. God rules the right-hand spiritual kingdom through the gospel and grace and the left-hand secular kingdom through law and the sword. The spiritual kingdom is an internal kingdom existing within the hearts of Christians. It produces true righteousness. The earthly kingdom is an external kingdom that exists in the rest of the world. It does not produce righteousness but only peacefulness. Since the spiritual kingdom is a kingdom of faith, the earthy government, which effects only our external actions, has no authority there. And since the earthly kingdom is--according to Luther--largely a kingdom of unbelievers, the earthly prince should not try to rule it through the Gospel.
[3] Since rule in the earthly kingdom is not based on the Gospel, there is no reason why the earthly prince must necessarily be a Christian and consequently no reason why we, as voters, should make our support of candidates conditional upon their profession of Christian faith. We are not electing pastors or bishops; we are electing presidents and governors, and non-Christians can fill these offices as well as Christians.
[4] However, while Luther recognized that an earthly prince did not necessarily have to be a Christian, he also saw an advantage in the prince being a Christian. When the government wields the sword properly -which means solely for the purpose of restraining the wicked and protecting the good -it preserves peace on earth and is a great benefit to all, Christian and non-Christian alike. When the sword is used wrongly, to make the prince powerful or rich, everyone suffers. Unfortunately, the power for the sword proves a great temptation for most mortals. In On the Secular Authority, Luther wrote that most princes are of the latter kind, selfish and corrupt. Selfless princes are a "miracle… not impossible, but quite unusual."  According to Luther, the only hope of having a selfless prince is when the prince is a Christian who has the Holy Spirit within. A Christian prince will approach the office as an opportunity to serve others rather than as an opportunity for self-aggrandizement. Such righteous behavior can be expected of "No one but a real Christian and one who is full of the Spirit…. It cannot be done without grace."

Because I am not a Lutheran and I know absolutely nothing about American politics, I would not presume to comment on what that gentleman meant when he said “the United States is not included among the kingdoms of the inhabited earth because the USA is of the Kingdom of God.”  However, from what Luther had to say about God ruling the right hand (spiritual) kingdom through the gospel and grace and the left-hand secular kingdom through law and the sword, I would take that to imply that God allows secular governments and authorities to rule and they are “God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer” (Romans 13:4).
It seems to me that Lutherans perceive politicians and rulers as “princes” and that these “earthly princes” have no authority over the spiritual Kingdom of God.


Trouble finding these quotes from St. John Chrysostom I stumbled upon the following quotations from St. Alphonsus' book "The History of Heresies and their Refutation":

  Gratia Dei semper in beneficiis priores sibi partes vindicat. (St.
  Chrysos. Hom. 13, in Jean)

  Quia in nostra voluntate totum post Gratiam Dei relictum est, ideo et peccantibus supplicia proposita sunt, et bene operantibus retributiones. (Idem, Hom. 22, in Gen.)

  Igitur quod accepisti, habes, ncque hoc tantum, aut illud, sed quidquid habes; non enim merita tua hæc sunt, sod Dei Gratia; quamvis fidem adducas, quamvis dona, quamvis doctrinæ sermonem, quamvis virtutem, omnia tibi inde provenerunt. Quid igitur habes quæso, quod acceptum non habeas? Num ipse perte recte operatus es? Non sane, sed accepisti...Propterea cohibearis oportet, non enim tuum ad munus est, sed largieutis. (St. Chrysos. Hom, in cap. 4, 1, ad Cor.)

The problem is that I can't find those in the works cited by Alphonsus. Any experts here on St. John Chrysostom or that have read some of his works that can help me out?

The source for the first quotation is the Chrysostom's 14th homily on St. John's Gospel. I've bolded and italicized the part of which the Latin above is a gloss.

  After having said, Of His fullness have all we received, he adds, and grace for grace. For by grace the Jews were saved: I chose you, says God, not because you were many in number, but because of your fathers. Deuteronomy 7:7, Septuagint If now they were chosen by God not for their own good deeds, it is manifest that by grace they obtained this honor. And we too all are saved by grace, but not in like manner; not for the same objects, but for objects much greater and higher. The grace then that is with us is not like theirs. For not only was pardon of sins given to us, (since this we have in common with them, for all have sinned,) but righteousness also, and sanctification, and sonship, and the gift of the Spirit far more glorious and more abundant. By this grace we have become the beloved of God, no longer as servants, but as sons and friends. Wherefore he says, grace for grace. Since even the things of the law were of grace, and the very fact of man being created from nothing, (for we did not receive this as a recompense for past good deeds, how could we, when we even were not? But from God who is ever the first to bestow His benefits,) and not only that we were created from nothing, but that when created, we straightway learned what we must and what we must not do, and that we received this law in our very nature, and that our Creator entrusted to us the impartial rule of conscience, these I say, are proofs of the greatest grace and unspeakable lovingkindness. And the recovery of this law after it had become corrupt, by means of the written (Law), this too was the work of grace. For what might have been expected to follow was, that they who falsified the law once given should suffer correction and punishments; but what actually took place was not this, but, on the contrary, an amending of our nature, and pardon, not of debt, but given through mercy and grace. For to show that it was of grace and mercy, hear what David says; The Lord executes righteousness and judgment for all that are oppressed; He made known His ways unto Moses, His acts unto the children of Israel Psalm 103:6-7: and again; Good and upright is the Lord, therefore will He give laws to them that are in the way. Psalm 25:8

I found this, because the same Latin passage is quoted in St. Albert the Great's Commentary on the Sentences, but with the citation pointing to Chyrsostom's 14th homily. Francisco Suarez (who lived 1548-1617) gives the same erroneous citation to the 13th homily as St. Alphonsus (lived 1696–1787) did, so we might hypothesize that St. Alphonsus was not looking at the original himself, but at Suarez or another author who also quoted Chrysostom with the incorrect citation.


Is it only Catholicism that says grace on food? I've heard it referred to as saying grace when you say a prayer to bless the food. Which denominations do this? Is this only a Catholic thing? Where did it come from?

Christians of all denominations (Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant) may all say grace before meals.  Some do and some don't consistently or not.

The origin of the practice is from Scripture.

  Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
  Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

  1 Timothy 4:1-5

The word for thanksgiving is eucharist, which is a priestly word, denoting the sanctifying (setting apart) of the food to be received.


What is the Catholic explanation of the particular temptations of Jesus in the wilderness? Please refer to Luke 4:1-13: Jesus fasts and is tempted in the wilderness

If Son, stone to bread > Kingdoms for you, if you pay me [Satan] homage > If Son, throw yourself, God will protect you.1

From Catholic theology, what is the explanation of the devil tempting Jesus with these temptations, and presenting them to him in a particular graduation?

1. Actual chronology may be as in Matt 4:1-11.

Related: Why Mathew and Luke Presented a Different Order of Satan's Temptation.

Just to clarify, this question is not seeking the Catholic explanation of why Jesus was tempted but why he was tempted with these temptations and in a certain order.

Explaining further, the devil might tempt one man with a certain sin - in the case of David it was adultery - and another man with a different one. The [Catholic] explanation being sought is why these particular temptations were presented to Jesus and in a particular order.

I imagine Catholics and Protestants are pretty much united in the way they look at Jesus' temptation in the wilderness, since both "camps" hold Scripture in high esteem and believe it to be God's word.

There is perhaps no better answer to your question, then, than the one found in Hebrews, especially chapter 2, verses 17 and 18, as well as chapters 4 and 5, beginning with the section from 4:14 ("Therefore, . . .") to 5:10, which ends with Jesus being referred to as a "high priest according to the order of Melchizedek" (5:10).

Of seminal importance are 2:17-18 and 4:15, which say:

  "Wherefore, it behoved [Jesus] in all things to be made like unto his brethren, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest before God, that he might be a propitiation for the sins of the people. For in that wherein he himself hath suffered and been tempted he is able to succour them also that are tempted" (Douay-Rheims).

And,

  "For we have not a high priest who cannot have compassion on our infirmities: but one tempted in all things like as we are, without sin" (Douay-Rheims).

Just as the ancient Hebrews were tested (and tempted) in the wilderness for 40 years, so too was Jesus tested (and tempted) in the wilderness for 40 days. There is significance in the two 40s, but that is not the point of the passage. The point of the passage is simply this:

  The reason Jesus can be an empathic high priest to His children is because He experienced every temptation we experience, yet He did so without sinning.

In other words, no one can say Jesus' time on earth was a walk in the park. He, like us, learned obedience to the Father's will through suffering. Unlike us, however, He never stumbled in His obedience and never once gave in to the devil's blandishments and half-truths, whether in His wilderness experience or at any point in His earthly ministry.

Despite Jesus' perfection, He knew firsthand what it is to be tempted. True, there was nothing in His character which was attracted by, or drawn to, sin. Nevertheless, His temptations were real, raw, and most significantly, perhaps, redemptive for us, particularly in the Garden of Gethsemane. It was there in His prayer to the Father that He expressed His desire to be exempted from the bitter cup He was about to drain on our behalf, yet He concluded His prayer with these words:

  "My Father, if this chalice may not pass away, but I must drink it, thy will be done" (Luke 22:42 Douay-Rheims).

Jesus, having emerged successfully from being tempted by the devil, despite the harshness of the wilderness, and despite being weakened by His 40-day fast, became an empathetic and compassionate high priest to all those who

  ". . . go . . . with confidence to the throne of grace . . . [to] obtain mercy and find grace in seasonable aid" (Hebrews 4:16 Douay-Rheims).

Moreover, Jesus emerged from His temptation steeled by having defeated His arch enemy, and in so doing was prepared for His greatest temptation in the Garden of Gethsemane (i.e., "olive press"), where the pressure became so great that "his sweat became as drops of blood, trickling down upon the ground (Luke 22:44 Douay-Rheims).

As for the significance of the temptations themselves and the "graduation" of them, as you put it, the three temptations seem to fit the pattern laid out for us by the disciple Jesus loved (viz., John) in 1 John 2:16-17 (NASB, Updated):

  "For all that is in the world [i.e., the kosmos], the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world. The world is passing away, and also its lusts; but the one who does the will of God lives forever."

The lust of the flesh corresponds to the temptation for Jesus to turn stones to bread.
The lust of the eyes corresponds to the temptation for Jesus to worship the devil in exchange for all the kingdoms of the world. (Notice that the devil showed Jesus these kingdoms in a moment of time, obviously not long enough for Jesus to see the corruption that existed in all those kingdoms.)
The boastful pride of life corresponds to the temptation for Jesus to cast himself from the pinnacle of the temple in Jerusalem.

In each temptation, the devil wanted Jesus to be and to act autonomously. Jesus chose instead to be obedient to and dependent on His Father. To Jesus, his food was to do only the will of his Father, and to complete the work His Father had laid out for him (see John 4:34).

From eternity past Jesus had determined to humble himself. As Paul tells us in Philippians chapter 2:

  ". . . although He existed in the form of God, [He] did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross" (vv.6-8 NASB, Updated).

In conclusion, while Jesus never ceased being God the Son while he was on earth, He did veil, if you will, the glory He possessed from all eternity by virtue of being coequal with the Father and the Holy Spirit. At some point in the future, however, during the Day of the Lord, Jesus will be reveal Himself to be the King of kings, and the Lord of lords,

  ". . . so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (Philippians 2:10-11 NASB Updated).


Why did Jesus favor Peter, James and John more than the other disciples? It's clear that Peter, James and John witnessed more miracles that Jesus did than the other disciples.  Why weren't the other disciples permitted to see the miracles that Jesus performed like Peter, James and John did?

You're making the mistake of an argument from silence, because in spite of your assertion that "its clear" that Peter, James, and John witnessed more of Jesus' miracles, all we really know for sure is that we have records that Peter, James, and John are reported to have witnessed more miracles than the other disciples. The fact that the other followers of Jesus are not mentioned in accounts of witnessing miracles of Jesus does not mean that they were not there, and all we can conclude for certain was that it was important to the writers of the various accounts to note that Peter, James, and John were witnesses, and that it was not so important to note that Thomas or James the Less also happened to be present. Before you can ask why the other disciples were not present, you first have to establish with certainty that you were not, and in the absence of any particular evidence in support of one possibility or the other, that is impossible to do.

You should also remember that the very last verse of John's Gospel makes it clear that Jesus performed many deeds (which may or not have been miracles) which are not recorded. It is altogether possible that the other disciples witnessed more of these unrecorded deeds that Peter, James, and John did.


Was Jesus having the beatific vision when He said: "My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?" I know that Jesus had the beatific vision while he stayed on earth. But at the cross, he said "My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?" sounding like he has not having the beatific vision at that moment. Is it possible that the Father to proved Jesus' human nature by preventing Him His beatific vision on the cross?

Please answer according to the Catholic Church.

The church teaches that the three divine persons of the Trinity are one, truly united, and inseparable (CCC 252' 255' and 689, among other references). So it is not possible for Christ to be excluded from relationship with the Father. Additionally, God the Father is pure spirit and so his relationship with the eternal son would not be affected by Jesus' bodily death.

The understanding of what this verse is saying is not addressed as a doctrine, but I have heard priests preach on this more than once that Jesus is quoting Psalm 22 verse 1 here:

  Psalm 22:1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?Why are you so far
  from saving me,so far from my cries of anguish?

Jesus is praying, and the Jewish people would have recognized that he was quoting the Psalm, which expresses anguish but also fundamental trust in God:

  Psalm 22:3-5 Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One;you are the one
  Israel praises. In you our ancestors put their trust;they trusted and
  you delivered them. To you they cried out and were saved;in you they
  trusted and were not put to shame.

Jesus is also fulfilling what was written, in that the people and Jewish leaders are mocking him, as described in the Psalm:

  Psalm 22:7-8 All who see me mock me;they hurl insults, shaking their
  heads. “He trusts in the Lord,” they say,“let the Lord rescue him.Let
  him deliver him,since he delights in him.”

And again, that they would cast lots for his garments:

  Psalm 22:17-18 All my bones are on display;people stare and gloat over
  me. They divide my clothes among them and cast lots for my garment.

Now later I. The Psalm Jesus' trust in God and the fact that God has not turned his face away is made even more clear in the passages leading up to verse 24:

  Psalm 22:19-24 But you, Lord, do not be far from me.You are my
  strength; come quickly to help me. Deliver me from the sword,my
  precious life from the power of the dogs. Rescue me from the mouth of
  the lions;save me from the horns of the wild oxen. I will declare your
  name to my people;in the assembly I will praise you. You who fear the
  Lord, praise him!All you descendants of Jacob, honor him!Revere him,
  all you descendants of Israel! For he has not despised or scornedthe
  suffering of the afflicted one;he has not hidden his face from himbut.
  has listened to his cry for help. (emphasis mine)

As in Gethsemane, Jesus is expressing his fundamental trust in God, and that God will rescue and vindicate him. We should not understand Jesus' words to mean that he has been put at arms length or has been put out of relationship and perfect union with God.

Edit: to address whether Christ's humanity only was separated from God:

The church definitively declared in 451 at the council of Chalcedon, also referenced in CCC 467 regarding Jesus divine and human natures, that:

  We confess that the same Christ, Lord, and only-begotten Son, is to
  be acknowledged in two natures within confusion, change division, or
  separation. The distinction between the natures was never abolished by
  their union...  ... As they came together in one person (prosperon)
  and one hypostasis.

And in CCC 468:

  Thus everything in Christ's human nature is to be attributed to his
  Divine purpose...  ... Also his sufferings and even his death.

So we are taught that there is never any division between Jesus' divinity and his humanity, even such that his humanity is now expressed by his person in the unity of the Trinity (CCC 470).

If this aspect of Christ interests you, you may find the entire article in the catechism helpful, paragraphs 464-483.