Were the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts written by the same person? Can you please explain why some people would argue that the Gospel of Luke and Acts were written by the same person?

The fact that both Books were written by the same individual known as Luke is extracted from the first few verses of both Books.

Luke 1:1 through4 KJV Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.
 Acts 1:1 KJV , The former treatise have I made O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,

Both books were written to one Theophilus, and  The former treatise have I made  O Theophilus indicates that Acts is a follow-up to the Book of Luke.
These two commentary excerpts deal with these introductions to the books.

"Luke 1:1
Forasmuch as many have taken in hand,.... From hence, to the end of Luk_1:4 is a preface of the evangelist to his Gospel, setting forth the reasons of his writing it; and which he wrote and sent to the excellent Theophilus, for the further confirmation of him in the faith of Christ. It seems that many had took in hand, or attempteo set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us; that is, they undertook to write and publish a very particular and exact narrative of the birth, life, actions, doctrines, miracles, sufferings, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ; things which Luke, and other Christians, had the fullest and strongest evidence, and were confidently assured of, and most firmly believed, even with a full assurance of faith. By these many, he cannot mean the authentic historians of evangelical facts, as Matthew and Mark; for they two cannot, with any propriety, be called many; and besides, it is not so very clear and certain a point, that they had, as yet, wrote their Gospels; nor would this evangelist suggest any deficiency, weakness, and inaccuracy in them, as he seems to do: nor does he intend such spurious writers as the authors of the Gospels according to the Nazarenes, Hebrews, and Egyptians; of Nicodemus, Thomas, Matthias, and of the twelve apostles; and still less, the Gospels of Cerinthus, Basilides, and other heretics; since these would not have passed without a censure from him, for the falsehood, fabulous, and trifling stuff in them, as well as for the wicked and heretical opinions propagated by them; and besides, these pieces were not extant when this Gospel was written: but he seems to design some honest and well meaning Christians, who undertook to write, and did write an account of the above things, which were firmly believed by all; and which they took from the apostles, and first ministers of the Gospel, from their sermons and discourses, and from conversation with them; and which they committed to writing, partly to help their own memories, and partly for the benefit of others; in which, no doubt, they acted an upright part, though attended with weakness: wherefore, the evangelist does not censure them as false, wicked, and heretical, nor approve of them as divine and perfect for though they honestly meant, and designed well, yet there might be many things collected by them, which were impertinent, and not proper to be transmitted to posterity; and what might be wrote with great inaccuracy and deficiency, and in a style the Holy Ghost thought improper things of this kind should be delivered in: and therefore the evangelist, moved and inspired by the Spirit of God, set about the following work, and under the same influence completed it. The phrase, αναταξασθαι διηγησιν, "to set forth in order a declaration", is as Dr. Lightfoot observes, out of the Talmud (h), agreeably to the Jewish way of speaking,
"R. Chasdai said to one of the Rabbins, who was מסדר אגדתא, "setting in order a declaration" before him. &c. or relating in order a story before him.
(h) T. Bab. Succa, fol. 53. 1."

Commentary by John Gill

"Acts 1:1
The former treatise have I made,.... Meaning the Gospel written by him the Evangelist Luke, for from that he makes a transition to this, beginning here where he there left off; namely, at the ascension of Christ; see Luk_24:51."

Commentary by Peter Gusik

With further examination of the two books there are similarities in both style and choice of syntax which lend both books to a common authorship.

Hope this helps


Do Catholics eat the substance of the Father during "communion"? The reason I am raising this question is not so much to understand communion as to understand:

"one substance with the Father" (since that seems at odds with Hebrews 1:1-3 to me)
"consubstantiation"
"transubstantiation"

My thought is by understanding this specific I might have a better idea of what they might mean.

So if someone eats Jesus' body does "same substance", "consubstantiation" or "transubstantiation" suggest that Catholics are they eating the Father's substance?

Again, these are probably ignorant questions but the answers might clarify for me what the Catholic theologians are on about.

Transubstantiation

Transubstantiation is a Latin word consisting of trans (a transition or change) and substantia (substance, or what [makes a thing what] a thing is). Properly, then, it means 'change of what it is.'

This was naturally adopted by a Christians (the East use the Greek equivalent, however, metaousia), who believed that the words of consecration, "This is my body" were literally true of the bread, but not that this demanded the makeup of bread to disappear from it physically—it was a change by God of what the thing now is.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem's words sum this belief up quite well (Catechetical Lectures, 22):

  For you have just heard him say distinctly, That our Lord Jesus Christ in the night in which He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks He broke it, and gave to His disciples, saying, Take, eat, this is My Body: and having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, Take, drink, this is My Blood. Since then He Himself declared and said of the Bread, This is My Body, who shall dare to doubt any longer? And since He has Himself affirmed and said, This is My Blood, who shall ever hesitate, saying, that it is not His blood? ... Consider therefore the Bread and the Wine not as bare elements, for they are, according to the Lord's declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ; for even though sense suggests this to you, yet let faith establish you. Judge not the matter from the taste, but from faith be fully assured without misgiving, that the Body and Blood of Christ have been vouchsafed to you.

As such, Catholics don't believe that Jesus' body is of one substance with the Father (but that the Son is). The Son is distinct from the body He assumed, given what this sentence just said. Nor do they even believe that Jesus is of one substance with His body (the Son and the body being conflated in such a case). They believe that the substance of the bread has become the substance of the body of Jesus, which is united to His soul and divinity (given that He is a real man with a soul, and the incarnate God).

In other words, they believe it is true when Jesus says, "This is my body" (not 'this bread' is my body; nor a game of charades).

(All accusations of 'cannabalism' will fall on deaf ears, too, when it comes to Catholics, since we know and have always known that there is no change in the accidents—the bread is the same to us before and after and to our body, physically. What has changed alone is the spiritual benefit when recieved, since "God has called" (Acts 10:15; Luke 22:19) it the Bread of Life, which is "[Jesus] flesh" (John 6:51). And so it is in all but appearance.)


According to YEC, did all plants and trees survive the Great Flood? If so, how? We read:

Genesis 6:17-21:

17 I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish. 18 But I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the ark—you and your sons and your wife and your sons’ wives with you. 19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. 21 You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them.”

Genesis 7:1-4:

1 The Lord then said to Noah, “Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. 2 Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. 4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.”

Genesis 7:14-16:

They had with them every wild animal according to its kind, all livestock according to their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground according to its kind and every bird according to its kind, everything with wings. 15 Pairs of all creatures that have the breath of life in them came to Noah and entered the ark. 16 The animals going in were male and female of every living thing, as God had commanded Noah. Then the Lord shut him in.

Genesis 7:20-23:

20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits. 21 Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

I think it is quite reasonable to deduce from the above that God did not instruct Noah to bring plants and trees into the Ark. Furthermore, "every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out". Now, even if the Jew did not consider plants to be living creatures, God knew that they are (because, well, they are). Thus, it is reasonable to think that if the Great Flood happened, all of the plants and trees died too. Even the aquatic plants died (presumably), because as the sea level rose, they were too far below it to capture sunlight to produce photosynthesis (plus the sky was covered in clouds). And yet, we read in Genesis 8:10-11, several days after the flood stopped:

10 He [Noah] waited seven more days and again sent out the dove from the ark. 11 When the dove returned to him in the evening, there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf! Then Noah knew that the water had receded from the earth.

So, how come an olive tree did not die during the flood, if all the surface of the earth was under water for more than 40 days? Or is it that God repeated what He did in the third day of creation? Genesis 1:11:

Then he commanded, “Let the earth produce all kinds of plants, those that bear grain and those that bear fruit”—and it was done.

You are falling into a linguistic trap because of translation issues. The core of the problem is your statement "Now, even if the Jews did not consider plants to be living creatures, God knew that they are (because, well, they are)." The actual meaning of the passage is that all the living animals died, but not necessarily the plants.
You are assuming that when the Jews did not include plants in the term "living things" that was a mistake due to ignorance. That's not the case - instead it's about definitions.
Interestingly the KJV makes the meaning clearer than modern translations, saying that the flood will destroy "all flesh" rather than all living things.
The Jews used a specific word to describe animal life. It's defined in their language to include animal life, but not to include plant life. We translate it as 'living', because that's the closest word we have, but it doesn't change the meaning that the Jews assigned to it. The word is theirs, and just because our definition of 'living' doesn't quite match their definition of their word does not mean they are 'wrong', or cause a theological problem. The context makes it clear what the meaning of the original word is.
You might also note that the definition of 'living' is not as clear cut as you might think, even in our times. The question of whether viruses (for example) are 'living' is not definitely decided.


Why is masturbation not allowed while intercourse without the purpose of offspring is allowed in RCC? The catechism of the RCC state that masturbation isn't appropriate and is immoral. But within a marriage a man can penetrate his wife, when the woman hasn't her fertile period. But why does the RCC makes this distinction, while in both cases there is actually (specially for the man) just a purpose of lust.

It is because of what you actually are doing.  When performing the marital act (as the good Catholic books call it) within marriage, you're not doing anything to prevent conception, you're just using the normal human cycles to pick a time to make love when the odds of conceiving a child are near zero.

Masturbation, even between partners, prevents conception like other forms of birth control.

This is covered in 50 Questions for the natural law. Where Dr. Charles Rice says mutual masturbation "treats the other person as an object." And he applies the title of mutual masturbation to all forms of contraceptive sex.

Natural Family Planning requires communication between the spouses about what they're actually doing.  So, even when it's outside the fertile period, you're still communicating about whether or not your act is likely to produce a child.  So it's still focused on the procreative aspect of marital relations.

Beyond that, it's better this way, according to Pope Paul in Humanæ Vitæ:

  The right and lawful ordering of birth demands, first of all, that spouses fully recognize and value the true blessings of family life and that they acquire complete mastery over themselves and their emotions.  For if with the aid of reason and of free will they are to control their natural drives, there can be no doubt at all of the need for self-denial. Only then will the expression of love, essential to married life, conform to right order.  This is especially clear in the practice of periodic continence. Self-discipline of this kind is a shining witness to the chastity of husband and wife and, far from being a hindrance to their love of one another, transforms it by giving it a more truly human character. And if this self-discipline does demand that they persevere in their purpose and efforts, it has at the same time the salutary effect of enabling husband and wife to develop to their personalities and to be enriched with spiritual blessings. For it brings to family life abundant fruits of tranquility and peace. It helps in solving difficulties of other kinds. It fosters in husband and wife thoughtfulness and loving consideration for one another. It helps them to repel inordinate self-love, which is the opposite of charity. It arouses in them a consciousness of their responsibilities. And finally, it confers upon parents a deeper and more effective influence in the education of their children. As their children grow up, they develop a right sense of values and achieve a serene and harmonious use of their mental and physical powers.

So much of what the Church teaches is regarded as merely a "ban on X" but what She's really trying to get at is an "Affirmation of Y which requires an exclusion of X".


Biblical basis for the separation of church and state I know there are a lot of non-biblical arguments for the separation of church and state. Some Christians also support it on biblical grounds, but I've never looked into the matter myself. Which passages of the Bible support the idea?

Some people use Mark 12:17 towards this goal.

  17 And Jesus answering said unto them, "Render to Caesar the things
  that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." And they
  marvelled at him.

The argument goes something like this:  The government is here to govern the society here on Earth.  God has been given to us to govern our hearts, minds, and souls.  So, we should allow the government to do what it does best and allow God to be in control of all the other things.

The argument is generally followed with the idea that we need to elect Christians into government and pray for our government officials, but that religion should be separate from the state.

Personally, I think this is a bit of a stretch.  The more solid arguments are the non-biblical ones (prevention of the majority overriding the minority, insuring freedom of religion, etc.)


How many people did Moses bring out of Egypt? How large was the area of the Promised Land? I want to know if they had enough space in which to live. The Bible mentions that there were many places they did not obtain. Could the Israelites feed themselves?

According to the Bible, in Exodus 12:37:

And the people of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children.
Some Scholars believe that the total number of Israelites who left Egypt during the exodus, women and children and old men included, was around 2.4 million people. If we include Egyptians who chose to join the Israelites, the number would be even greater: “Many other people went up with them, and also large droves of livestock, both flocks and herds” (Exodus 12:38).
In the second year after the Israelites left Egypt, Moses took a census of the men in Israel able to fight—all the able-bodied men age twenty and above from all the tribes except the Levites. The number of warriors was 603,550 (Numbers 1:45–46). The Levites were not counted because God commanded Moses to exclude them from the census (verse 49). Instead of going to war, the Levites were to stay and guard the tabernacle (verse 53).
Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/Israelites-exodus.html

With regard to the land that God had promised to his people, the Bible says this in Joshua 1:4:

Your territory will extend from the desert to Lebanon, and from the great river, the Euphrates—all the Hittite country—to the Great Sea on the west.

That area includes all of the land modern Israel currently possesses, plus all of the land of the Palestinians (the West Bank and Gaza), plus some of Egypt and Syria, plus all of Jordan, plus some of Saudi Arabia and Iraq.
Although the Israelites failed to take possession of all the land promised to them, there was more than ample land to accommodate and feed the Israelites.


What does it mean to be "weak in faith"? There have been some questions and answers which discuss the strength of one's faith such as Why do OEC discount the literal interpretation of the book of Genesis?

There is also a question which asks What is "faith?" and another which asks How do I get more faith?

How do you measure faith, and how can you identify when someone is "weaker" in it?

Romans 14 addresses this question in a practical way.  It largely assumes that the reader already understands what is meant by weak faith, but the chapter still gives insight into what Paul meant by "weak faith".

(All quotes below are NASB.)

  1 Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. 2 One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. 3 The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

Paul mentions the specific case of dietary laws, but a generalization of his view presented here is that the person with weaker faith has a bigger tendency to be legalistic and the person with stronger faith is comfortable with a larger variety of activities.  The bottom line though is that neither brother should allow difference in faith to affect their view of the other.

Both in verse 3 above and verse 10 below Paul points out that the person with weaker faith tends to judge others (for their "improper" behavior) while in contrast the person with stronger faith tends to view others with contempt (for their lack of understanding of their freedom).

If you have a tendency to judge others or if you have a tendency to view others with contempt, you need to consider who the ultimate judge is.

  10 But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.

  11 For it is written,

  “AS I LIVE, SAYS THE LORD, EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW TO ME,
  AND EVERY TONGUE SHALL GIVE PRAISE TO GOD.”

  12 So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God. (Emphasis added.)

So what's the practical application/result of this understanding of "weak faith"?

  13 Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this—not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother’s way.

  22 The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. 23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.

Live your life according to the convictions God has given you.
Do not judge the convictions of a brother in Christ.
Always be willing to yield your behavior to the stronger convictions of a brother so that you will not cause him to stumble.


What traditions believe that a woman's relationship with God must go through some man and how do they support it from the Bible? As the question's title states, some traditions believe that there must be some man between every woman and God, be it her husband or a priest or whoever. What is the Biblical support for this view, and are there any major Protestant denominations that hold this view?

I think a better way to word your question is "What traditions hold the most conservative view of 1 Corinthians 11. If any tradition or denomination stands by what you are saying, they would most certainly derive the Biblical basis from this passage:

  But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and
  the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.Every
  man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his
  head.But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head
  uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she
  were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn:
  but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be
  covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he
  is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the
  man... For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head
  because of the angels. 1 Corinthians 11:3-7,10 (emphasis added)

I don't think any present, mainline group would confirm that a woman's relationship with God must go through a man. Even the most conservative denominations today would emphatically state that women participate equally in the priesthood of believers. What differs is the role that women play in the Church (at this point, I wonder what your sources are that brought up this question. Please see below for a commentary from Matthew Henry on this passage. Although your question does not necessarily warrent this, I think it's helpful to see a very traditional, mainline view from the 1600s.)

That said, I have met individuals, even pastors who stand by this "must go through a man" line of doctrine. It's spoken of as "headship," that a women must have a male "head" that represents her. This can be a pastor, father, or husband that agrees to take responsibility for her spiritual growth. What ends up being the case however, is just a de facto acknowledgement of headship, almost like "nearest of kin" laws: If a woman has no husband, then her head is her father, if he's not a Christian, the her pastor, and so one. It really is not an active headship unless the women consents to it or it's forced. Again, it's not a commonview.

What this purported view of women sounds like, really, is the convention of coverture, a principle in English Common Law that subsumes a married woman completely under her husband. Under this law, a married woman could not own land or make legal agreements (even commite a crime) without her husband taking responsibility. As has been the case for centuries, religious and civil principles have been confused and and convoluted, so while it may seem like this is a current view, it's actually a relic from Medieval times.

  The thing he reprehends is the woman’s praying or prophesying
  uncovered, or the man’s doing either covered, v. 4, 5. To understand
  this, it must be observed that it was a signification either of shame
  or subjection for persons to be veiled, or covered, in the eastern
  countries, contrary to the custom of ours, where the being bare-headed
  betokens subjection, and being covered superiority and dominion. And
  this will help us the better to understand,

  ... though a woman might not from her own abilities pretend to teach,
  or so much as question and debate any thing in the church yet when
  under inspiration the case was altered, she had liberty to speak. Or,
  though she might not preach even by inspiration (because teaching is
  the business of a superior), yet she might pray or utter hymns by
  inspiration, even in the public assembly. She did not show any
  affectation of superiority over the man by such acts of public
  worship. It is plain the apostle does not in this place prohibit the
  thing, but reprehend the manner of doing it....

  To understand this, it must be observed that it was a signification
  either of shame or subjection for persons to be veiled, or covered, in
  the eastern countries, contrary to the custom of ours, where the being
  bare-headed betokens subjection, and being covered superiority and
  dominion. And this will help us the better to understand,  The reasons
  on which he [Paul] grounds his reprehension. 1. The man that prays or
  prophesies with his head covered dishonoureth his head, namely,
  Christ, the head of every man (v. 3), by appearing in a habit
  unsuitable to the rank in which God has placed him. Note, We should,
  even in our dress and habits, avoid every thing that may dishonour
  Christ. The woman, on the other hand, who prays or prophesies with her
  head uncovered dishonoureth her head, namely, the man, v. 3. She
  appears in the dress of her superior, and throws off the token of her
  subjection. She might, with equal decency, cut her hair short, or cut
  it close, which was the custom of the man in that age. This would be
  in a manner to declare that she was desirous of changing sexes, a
  manifest affectation of that superiority which God had conferred on
  the other sex.
  Henry, Matthew. "Commentary on 1 Corinthians 11." . Blue Letter Bible. 1 Mar 1996. 2011. 29 Aug 2011.


Do any Christian groups refer to God as "she", "it" or "they"? (Or is it always "He"?) In this age of “Political Correctness”, it seems that many people now frown upon the use of he as a gender-neutral pronoun with which to refer to the Christian God, though it was universally used for centuries before the women’s liberation movement of the 1960s. Julian of Norwich and Hildegard of Bingen both referred to “Mother God” in the Middle Ages, but there seem to be no other notable examples throughout history.

Are there any traditions which avoid the wrath of those who object to male-dominated language and refer to the Christian God as she, it or they? Or is God always male and he?

At least two churches have decided to abstain from referring to God exclusively as "he".
The United Church of Christ.

The Eleventh General Synod instructed that a Book of Worship be developed and characterized by language that is truly inclusive with respect to God and to people. Although the generic use of masculine terms has been accepted practice, it is exclusive and viewed as offensive by many. Further, the use of only masculine nouns and pronouns for God and of masculine generic terms for humankind has hidden the rich feminine imagery for God and God's people in scripture. Scripture contains many gender neutral metaphors for God such as shepherd, rock, or Holy One. The rediscovery of the complementary female and male metaphors in the Bible and the literature of the early church encourages Christians not to settle for literary poverty in the midst of literary riches.

And the Metropolitan Community Church.

Many of us, when we first come to MCC, are so accustomed to using male pronouns for God that even when we come to understand God as beyond gender and other human categories, even when we come to view God as Spirit who is neither male nor female, it is still difficult not to say "he," "him," and "his" for God. This male terminology, however, limits God to our cultural view of the Divine, which is a male-dominant point of view.
~Reverend Dr. Jeffrey Pulling, "More Than Just Words: A Study & Reflection Guide to the Issues of Inclusive Language Within MCC"

wiki


How long, and in what cases did Catholics participate in the Black Fast? I ran across the term "Black Fast" and looked it up.  The articles I'm finding indicate that it's extreme, and give some information about the types of foods allowed during it, but I keep expecting to find information on when it was performed and why.  In my experience, in Catholic tradition, there is a detailed reason and circumstance for just about everything, and I'm just not finding it.

Also, based on the restrictions, this looks to be something that is intended to be something done for an extended period of time, not just a few days...

  The details of the fast, as they were prior to the tenth century, are
  as follows:

  No more than one meal per day was permitted
  Flesh meat, eggs, butter, cheese and milk were forbidden
  The meal was not allowed until after sunset
  Alcohol was forbidden
  During Holy Week, the meal consisted exclusively of bread, salt, herbs, and water

No more than one meal per day would be hard for a few days, but doable, so I have to assume that this fast is meant for extended periods.

The closest I could come to a "how long" answer was a blurb in Wikipedia, but it it about how the Eastern Orthodox Church practices it today.

  The Black Fast is still observed by the Eastern Orthodox on Wednesdays
  and Fridays and during the 40 days of Lent and three other fasting
  periods of the year.

So, if anyone can fill in the blanks, and explain when it is done, why it is done, and for how long it is done, I'd greatly appreciate it.

You are right. Eastern Orthodox still practice this in a way, though it is not called the "Black Fast". As I am an Orthodox Christian I can tell you that we do fast every Wednesday and Friday, though not as strictly as the Black Fast. It's more like eat vegan, basically the same as you listed, but we get 3 meals at the regular times, though some people may do it more strictly including monastics. Also don't eat as much.
Then we also have as we call it the Great Fast, or Great Lent, that starts 40 days before Holy Week. Basically we eat the same as on Wednesdays and Fridays, also trying more then normal to abstain from sin (that's the whole goal right?). Then during Holy Week the rules change and it is a little more strict, namely maybe 1 meal a day, on special days (Holy Friday: the crucifixion) eating nothing at all. Check out wikipedia for more info.
We also have fasts before the Dormition (two weeks long called the Dormition Fast), a fast called the Apostles Fast, and A fast before Christmas, called Advent. According to Wikipedia, Advent starts on the fourth Sunday before December 25, which is the Sunday between November 27 and December 3. According to my Orthodox Calendar, this year it will start on November 15.
Also I forgot to mention, that on the first week of Great Lent we have a strict fast from Monday to Wednesday, thats a strict fast meaning no food at all. For the weak, (Children, Elderly, Pregnant) there are exceptions.
Of course thats not all the fasts that we do. Check this link for more info.
OK, just checked back at your question and saw that you asked why it is done.
Um, kind of for the whole going to heaven thing that we're doing as Christians. Depriving the body of food is supposed to help with repentance and to humble the body to the Spirits will.
Hope that answers your question! If not I can say even more.


How can the logical impossibility of infinite self reference be reconciled in the case of God? This assumes that God conforms to the laws of logic as without doing so we can make absolutely no deductions about him, his existence, or any of his actions or attributes.

Within computer science, there is the notion of computability. This is the idea of whether it is possible to calculate something or not. It is provable that there exists a set of problems that cannot be computed. See the Halting Problem

If we take the attributes of the traditional Christian god, that he is all knowing, and all powerful, it appears this creates a logical contradiction. Here is an example:

Event A causes event B within the universe.
God decides that he does not want event B to occur so he stops event A from happening.
Event A no longer happened and therefore God would never intervene in the first place. Go to 1.

This is a very simplified example, and suffers from the problem that it is grounded in the concept of time, and this would imply God is able to circumvent this paradox because of the fact he is outside of time.

However effectively the same occurs with the halting problem, except time is not an issue. If God evaluates the universe (all of space and time) and comes to a decision, he takes action but some actions will depend on what he originally observed meaning it must be re-observed and re-evaluated. In this 'new round' of observation he is now evaluating himself and his previous actions. In some cases, this can lead to infinite self reference which is logically undecidable.

This seems to leave us with 3 options:

God is not all powerful. He could be very close, but with the diagonalisation proof I think we can show there are conceivably situations that would not work.
God is not all knowing. Again, he could be very close to all knowing, but can't logically be entirely all knowing.
God does not conform to the laws of logic.

I would be really interested to hear any thoughts you may have on different parts of this. If anyone here has studied the halting problem in more detail than I it would be interesting to see where it doesn't hold.

Edit: I feel I should make a small clarification about the logic assumption. If you actually know what logic is, and I don't mean "things feeling scientific" or something wishy washy like that, I mean the laws of logic, then I think you will realise that saying God does not conform to them effectively makes the concept of God pointless.

I know Christians who agree and disagree with this, but it seems that the pattern is those who actually understand what logic is agree that God must conform to it.

It is possible to say that God does not conform to logic, however if you believe this you must also accept that, from our point of view, we can then say nothing about his nature, his actions or his existence.

I don't think this path of reasoning benefits anyone in any way.

Edit 2: Here is a short description of the halting problem. The analogy I am making is that God is essentially one of the 'oracles' referred to in the article, and after acting within the universe must re-evaluate the universe to see if more changes need to be made now that he can see the results of his actions, thus leading to self-reference.

Nothing to do with religion / God / whatever, but there seems to be a fundamental flaw in your argument here.

  Event A causes event B within the universe.
  God decides that he does not want event B to occur so he stops event A from happening.
  Event A no longer happened and therefore God would never intervene in the first place. Go to 1.

The third bullet does not follow unless you are thinking of God as Marty McFly hopping backwards and forwards.

If I have misinterpreted the logic in the question, please let me know. However, let's put this into more common terms, following your reasoning:

smoking (A) causes cancer (B) and costs money
I decide that I don't want to get cancer or waste money, so I stop this from happening to me by not smoking
I didn't smoke (!A) and I find I don't have cancer (!B) (based on a statistical average) and have spare change in my pocket, therefore my efforts were wasted and there was no need not to smoke

or:

leaving the hob gas on unlit (A) causes houses to explode (B)
I decide I don't want my house to explode, so I check the gas is off when I'm not using it
the gas wasn't on (!A), and my house didn't explode (!B), therefore my caution was unneeded and there was no need to turn off the gas

Even in Human logic, the third bullet is nonsense. It really isn't my intent to defend the religious view here, but this is not a sensible argument against God, and is trivially dismissed even when considering a person with natural knowledge. If we pre-suppose all-knowing, then that not includes possible consequence, but rather: absolute knowledge of consequence (and prior reasoning).

It seems that even in the knowledge that A (and B) hasn't (haven't) happened, having A continue to not happen (to avoid B) is still necessary.


Why were Pseudo-Dionysius's works accepted as authentic for so long? Pseudo-Dionysius was a 5th/6th century Christian theologian who claimed to be the Dionysius that Paul converted in Acts 17:34.  This claim was widely accepted for almost a millennium, which afforded his work significant influence in medieval Christianity.

I know that historiography has come a long way in the last 1500 years, but the idea that these works could have originated in the first or second century seems completely preposterous.  Why, for example, were none of the writings of "Dionysius" quoted in the prolific writings of Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, or Gregory of Nazianzus?  Not to mention their complete absence in the Councils and in Western writers like Augustine.

I see from the Wikipedia article that "Dionysius" had some early skeptics, but a number of medieval figures argued for the early dating, such as Severus, John of Scythopolis, and Theodore of Raithu.  My question is: what arguments did these and other early-date proponents make that convinced medieval Christianity to consider these works authentic?

I know that some of these writers had a vested interest in the authenticity of the works, but they must have made other arguments besides "I agree with Dionysius so he must be who he claims to be."  What evidence did they cite?

I think that a distinction needs to be drawn between authentic in the sense that the works were historically authentic (i.e. indeed written by the Dionysius of Acts) and authentic in the sense that they correctly reflect Apostolic teaching.

Eastern Christian theology is not based so much on the former as the latter.  The Pseudo-Dionysian corpus was not so much accepted because the latter Fathers thought it was written by Dionysius (which many seem to have believed), but rather because of the clarity with which it expressed certain truths which they held.

To perhaps further shock, Pseudo-Dionysius continues to remain an important part of the written tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Church to this day, despite full awareness of the issues with its historical authenticity.  The entry on Dionysius in the text of one prominent Russian Orthodox theologian reads, for example:

  St. DIONYSIUS the Areopagite ---          A.D. 96

  A disciple of the Apostle Paul (Acts 17: 34), first Bishop of Athens,
  martyred in Paris; commemorated October 3. To him have been attributed
  a number of works (Mystical Theology, The Divine Names, The
  Heavenly Hierarchy, The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy) which formulated
  the basic Orthodox teaching on these subjects and inspired later
  Orthodox theologians from the time of St. Maximus the Confessor (7th
  century). Because his works seem to have been unknown in the first
  Christian centuries, and in a style and content seem to be later in
  date, it is generally accepted that in their present form they are of
  the 5th century. Modern scholars therefore call the author
  “Pseudo-Dionysius,” but in the Orthodox world, where the concept of
  “authorship” is not so restricted, there is no difficulty in seeing
  these works as in the tradition of St. Dionysius — and through him, of
  St. Paul.1

This sentiment is echoed in one of the most important Orthodox Christian theological works of the 20th century - based largely on the writings of Pseudo-Dionysius - Vladimir Lossky's The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church:

  Modern critics, so far from agreeing as to the identity of the ‘Pseudo
  Dionysius’ and as to the date of the composition of his works, wander
  amidst the most diverse hypotheses. The way in which the critical
  researches waver between dates as far apart as the third and sixth
  centuries shows how small a measure of agreement has as yet been
  reached in regard to the origins of this mysterious work. But whatever
  the results of all this research may be, they can in no way diminish
  the theological value of the Areopagitica. From this point of view
  it matters little who their author was. What is important is the
  Church’s judgement on the contents of the work and the use which she
  has made of it. Does not the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews say
  in quoting a psalm of David: ‘But one in a certain place testified
  …’2? thus showing to what extent the question of authorship
  is of secondary importance in the case of a text inspired by the Holy
  Spirit. What is true of Holy Scripture is also true of the theological
  tradition of the Church.

So the answer I would give to your question, "Why were Pseudo-Dionysius's works accepted as authentic for so long?" is that historical accuracy was not as important issue as might be imagined in the eastern Church - with a footnote that the works are still accepted as being theologically authentic, even if  their historical origin is in question.

1 Michael Pomazanski, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology (3rd ed.), p.382
2 Hebrews 2:6


Where, exactly, were Christ's body and soul during the Descendit? In the Confessional Presbyterian, Vol. 3, p. 104ff., Daniel Hyde wrote about several different views of the Descendit - the descent of Christ into Hell - in his article "In Defense of the Descendit: A Confessional Response to Contemporary Critics of Christ's Descent into Hell". I found the article helpful, but found myself a bit puzzled on what exactly each of the views thought concerning where Christ was at any point during the Descendit. According to the orthodox view, Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man. His divine nature is God, and therefore omnipresent. But His human nature is the same as ours, yet without sin. So, for these different views of the Descendit, where is Jesus' human body, and where is His human soul during the events of the Crucifixion, Descent, Resurrection, and Ascension?

The four views about which Daniel Hyde wrote about are the following:

The Punishment View (Christ's human soul undergoing more suffering in order to finish our redemption)
The Second-Chance View (to give those who died before His first coming the chance to repent)
Pronouncement of Triumph to Believers View
Pronouncement of Triumph to Satan View

If you know a particular view's beliefs (it doesn't have to be in this list), I'd be happy to see them here.

What I'm looking for is a sort of chart that has the four events I mentioned above along the top for the columns, and Jesus' human body and human soul along the left for two different rows. So that's 8 table entries per view of the Descendit. Example:

This will take a bit of work...But thankfully, the work has already been done :)

If you go to Volume 2 of Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology, p 591, you will there see a pretty good treatment of Christ's Death and Burial. (Search for "Christ humbled Himself even unto death, and continued under the power of death for
a time." minus the quotes in the pdf)

Because Hodge presents various historical views on the subject, I am not game to try and fill in the table for you, but would be very interested to see what others can make of Hodge's treatment of this. I think the table could be filled in from reading Hodge. It certainly helped me with your questions in mind.

Here is a snippet or two from Hodge....
That Christ died is universally admitted by all Christians. That His suffering finished when He died is also held firm for He cried “It is finished”. Hodge then goes on to say that what happened was Christ descended into Sheol (the place of the dead) or the invisible state.
He then quotes from the Westminster Larger Catechism “Christ’s humiliation after his death consisted in his being buried, and continuing in the state of the dead, and under the power of death till the third day, which hath been otherwise expressed in these words, He descended into hell.” This Hodge argues is the correct view of Scripture.

“Hence to be buried, to go down to the grave, to descend into hell, are in Scriptural language equivalent forms of expression”.

“In Scriptural language, therefore, to descend into Hades or Hell, means nothing more than to descend to the grave, to pass from the visible into the invisible world, as happens to all men when they die and are buried." (As an aside, Christ did not go to Hell (Gehenna - the place of torment) as His sufferings finished on the cross. )

“This view is confirmed by the fact that these words were not in the creed originally.
They were introduced in the fourth century, and then not as a separate or distinct article,
but as merely explanatory. “He was dead and buried,” i.e., he descended into hell. That the
two clauses were at first considered equivalent is obvious, because some copies of the creed had the one form, some the other, and some both, though all were intended to say the same thing”.


What is the position of the United Methodist Church on creationism and evolution Reverend Paul Kottke, of the United Methodist Church, has preached that Christian faith and science, including Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, are not incompatible. This seems to be in accord with the views of other denominations such as the Catholic Church and the Episcopal Church, but what is the official position of the United Methodist Church.

Wikipedia ranks the United Methodist Church as the third largest Christian denomination in the United States, and the largest denomination within the wider Methodist movement, worldwide.

The official statement on Science and Technology says in part, "We find that science’s descriptions of cosmological, geological, and biological evolution are not in conflict with theology.
The Church also opposes introducing theories such as Creationism or Intelligent Design into public school curriculum.

http://www.umc.org/what-we-believe/what-is-the-united-methodist-churchs-position-on-evolution
http://www.umc.org/what-we-believe/the-natural-world#science-tech


Is it sinful for priests or/and those in state of religion to hug women? Question.

Is it sinful for priests or/and those in state of religion (eg. Franciscans, Dominicans, etc.) to hug women (of course, we are not speaking of hugging mother, sister or something like that)?

Argument against.

We can see this happen publicly on the show The Voice (about 7 minutes and 45 seconds in the video). Also, I see many examples in the youth groups where the priest becomes (very) friendly with the youth. So, obviously those who have authority are seen to do such things and I have seen no one to reproach them; so it seems that they are not doing anything evil.

Argument for.

It would seem that all hugging between male and female (which are not husband or wife or are family) is sinful (so for a priest or religious it is also a sin). For it is mentioned as a sin in the Eisenger Confessionale p.180:

  qui deliberate exosculatus aut complexus fuit vel tetigit mulierem
  (who deliberately kissed, hugged or touched woman)

Yes, it can be:

Scandal

So as to avoid scandal, can. 667 on enclosure prohibits certain people from entering cloisters.
Can. 667 §4 governs how semi-cloistered nuns (i.e., those with episcopal enclosure) can be outside their convents:§4. For a just cause, a diocesan bishop has the faculty of entering the cloister of monasteries of nuns which are in his diocese and, for a grave cause and with the consent of the superior, of permitting others to be admitted to the cloister and the nuns to leave it [their cloister] for a truly necessary period of time.Contemplatives, who are under papal enclosure, need the Pope's permission.

Lust

If the hugs are done for lustful motives (cf. Summa Theologica II-II q. 154 a. 4)

Over-familiarity

Super Io., cap. 4 l. 6.:  "nimia familiaritas, reverentiam minuit, et contemptum parit" ("over-familiarity diminishes reverence and breeds contempt")

Sacrilege

Just like a chalice, consecrated to hold the Precious Blood, used for a profane purpose (such as for drinking water) would be sacrilege, so, too, is "laying violent* hands on clerics or religious of either sex" or "the commission of acts of unchastity by or with a person bound by the public vow of chastity" sacrilege.*The hugging you show in your YouTube video appears violent, forced upon her.

Also, regarding your link to the The Voice show, listen to this sermon: "Sister Cristina & the Current Church Crisis."


How did Christians cultivate their knowledge of the Bible before mass-printing of the Bible? The Bible is by far the most sold book ever. As this site says:

Bible Society’s attempt to calculate the number printed between 1816 and 1975 produced the figure of 2,458,000,000 – almost 2 and a half billion.
Another survey, for the years up to 1992, put it closer to 6 billion.

Nowadays, we could argue that most of Christians (families) own a Bible. But more importantly, most of Christians can read, which mean they, in principle, can read and study the Bible.
However, this has not always been the case. On the one hand, for most of the last two millennia, most of the people were illiterate. The existing data shows that literacy in now-developed countries started to improve only by the Enlightenment period, reaching +80% less than 200 years ago. Such levels of literacy in majority Christian countries of Latin America were only reached less than a century ago:

On the other hand, the availability of Bibles, particularly before the invention of the printing press and the "Gutenberg revolution", was quite constrained. Before the invention of the printing press, bibles were manually copied, primarily by monks. This was a time consuming process, making bibles quite expensive. Thus, bibles were perhaps primarily available in churches, monasteries and some rich individuals' houses (who were the ones that could read, anyway).
So, the question I have is, how did the majority of Christians cultivated their knowledge of the Bible (OT and/or NT)? Probably, one of the original intentions of the writing of the gospels was to make Jesus' teaching and life more widely available for Christians across churches. With the establishment of the Canon of the Bible, this process became mainstream across the established Church (e.g. the commission of the Vulgate by Pope Damasus I).
My intuition tells me that most of Christians learned about the Bible by popular sayings, stories, and calendar celebrations (like Christmas). Those who attended a church service or Mass would learn also from the lectures and sermons. Is there a formal/historical analysis of this situation? Perhaps a book that goes through this?

How did Christians cultivate their knowledge of the Bible before mass-printing of the Bible?

There are several ways the poor and illiterate were able to cultivate a basic knowledge of the Bible prior to the advent of the printing press.

Some of the most obvious tools used by the faithful were stained glass windows, paintings, statues, story telling, missions, medieval mystery plays and the use of song.

We all know that the Poor Man's Bible is stained glass windows that could be found in many different churches and cathedrals.

  The term Poor Man's Bible has come into use in modern times to describe works of art within churches and cathedrals which either individually or collectively have been created to illustrate the teachings of the Bible for a largely illiterate population. These artworks may take the form of carvings, paintings, mosaics or stained glass windows. In some churches a single artwork, such as a stained glass window has the role of Poor Man's Bible while in others, the entire church is decorated with a complex biblical narrative that unites in a single scheme. - Poor Man's Bible (Wikipedia)

Images above are of Noah, Lamech, and Thara, from the Ancestors of Christ Windows, Canterbury Cathedral, England.

Singing was one of the greatest ways to enhance one's knowledge of the Bible and it is explicitly mentioned in Scriptures.

  1  Sing to the LORD a new song, for he has done marvelous things; his right hand and his holy arm have worked salvation for him.   2  The LORD has made his salvation known and revealed his righteousness to the nations.   3  He has remembered his love and his faithfulness to Israel; all the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God.   4  Shout for joy to the LORD, all the earth, burst into jubilant song with music;   5  make music to the LORD with the harp, with the harp and the sound of singing,   6  with trumpets and the blast of the ram’s horn— shout for joy before the LORD, the King.   7  Let the sea resound, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it. - Psalm 98:1-7

Story telling has a huge place in all this. It is recognized by historians and theologians that Israel's history was preserved by word of mouth.

  By the middle of the 5th century BC religion and history were taught simultaneously through storytelling. These topics were made fascinating by way of the storyteller. Their lessons were taught through exciting recounts of miracles, by games of question and answer, and by visible reminders (Nelson 2002, 332). They explained the meaning of the great feasts to them and showed them how each of the customs that they observed had holy significance (Daniel-Rops 1962, 128). Even a simple pile of rocks became an object lesson for the retelling of the crossing of the Jordan River. Fathers told their children of all the wonders that God had done for his people. The Scripture was the foundation of all morality. Therefore, to study and learn it was to grow spiritually (Ward 1987, 150). - STORYTELLING: A SOURCE FOR REDUCING BIBLICAL ILLITERACY

Another way to enhance the knowledge of the Bible was through  Medieval Mystery Plays or as some call them Miracle Plays.

  Mystery plays and miracle plays (they are distinguished as two different forms although the terms are often used interchangeably1) are among the earliest formally developed plays in medieval Europe. Medieval mystery plays focused on the representation of Bible stories in churches as tableaux with accompanying antiphonal song. They told of subjects such as the Creation, Adam and Eve, the murder of Abel, and the Last Judgement.2 Often they were performed together in cycles which could last for days.3 The name derives from mystery used in its sense of miracle,4 but an occasionally quoted derivation is from ministerium, meaning craft, and so the 'mysteries' or plays performed by the craft guilds.

  Spanish mystery plays

  The Misteri d'Elx (in English, the Elx Mystery Play or Mystery Play of Elx) is a liturgical drama dating from the Middle Ages which has been enacted and celebrated every year without any known interruptions. Commemorating the Assumption of Mary, it is played on every 14 and 15 August in the Basilica de Santa María in the city of Elx (also known as Elche). The prohibition of theatrical plays in churches by the Council of Trent eventually threatened to interrupt the yearly performance of the Misteri, but in 1632 Pope Urban VIII issued a special permit for its continuation. In 2001, UNESCO declared it one of the Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity. - Mystery play (Wikipedia)

In the Middle Ages many story and legends abound about how plants and to a lesser degree animals got their names associated with various biblical events, saints or religious truths of one sort or another:

Blessing Basil Leaf in Honour of the Holy Cross

St. George's mushroom


Where do Christians believe the Qur'an came from? The "prophet" Muhammad stated that the angel Gabriel visited him with revelation and he put great importance upon Gabriel.

So my question is, where do Christians believe Muhammad's revelation came from and what Christians believe about Muhammad's claim about his revelations from Gabriel? Do they believe that he lied and made it up, or do they believe it was a demon rather than Gabriel who visited Muhammad?

The question is seeking answers based on doctrinal and official views of any Christian denominations.

The "prophet" Muhammad stated that the angel Gabriel visited him with revelation and he put great importance upon Gabriel.

This is not true.  Not if you are talking about the Koran, which never says this.  This information comes from the Hadiths.  If you were to base your understanding of Mohammed purely on his writings (i.e. the Koran) and not on the hearsay stories of later Muslim tradition, you would not come to the conclusion that Mohammed said anything about Gabriel.

The way Mohammed presents it in the Koran, it sounds like he's claiming Allah himself is speaking to him. There is no specific mention of Gabriel doing anything with revelation, other than in Sura 2:97-98 which is easy to miss. In fact, Michael is mentioned in the same context. Nowhere in the Koran does Mohammed specifically claim that any of his "revelation" comes from Gabriel. This specific place seems to be making Gabriel "confirm" the message (similarly to the Holy Spirit in Christianity) and that anyone who rejects revelation is an enemy of Gabriel and Michael and all the angels.

In point of fact, Sura 2:98 doesn't even specifically call Gabriel and Michael angels, but may even intend them to be human messengers, for it says "Whoever is the enemy of Allah and His angels and His messengers and Jibreel and Meekaeel, so surely Allah is the enemy of the unbelievers."  It could even be taken that Gabriel and Michael are being placed in a third category all their own, and not among the angels nor the messengers.  This would not be surprising considering the very low state of Mohammed's biblical knowledge (to be discussed below).

A reading of Mohammed's book (i.e. the Koran) will show that he pieced his "revelation" together from Bible stories that he heard taught (he obviously didn't read the Bible) and from stories and legends taken from the Talmud which he heard (e.g. the angels being commanded to worship Adam) and from Pagan stories which he heard (e.g. "God's own she-camel").

That he did not receive his information from any angel nor from actually reading the Bible is clear from how he mangles Bible stories, like getting Haman from the book of Esther into the story of Moses, and making Haman the builder of the tower of Babel, in Moses' day, by having Pharaoh say to Haman "Build me a tower so I can climb to heaven and see Moses' God." (Koran, in Sura 28:38 and Sura 40:36-37)

The Koran also confuses Mary the mother of Jesus with Miriam the sister of Moses, explicitly calling Mary "the daughter of Amram" (or Imram) and "sister of Aaron" several times.  Its pretty clear that Mohammed has no sense of chronology, and thinks that Jesus was Moses' nephew and received the Injeel (Gospel) not long after Moses received the Tavrat (Torah), perhaps only a decade or so later.

This kind of mixing up of various biblical stories into one can only occur as a result of being illiterate, of not having read the Bible, and of accidentally mixing up stories you heard in your head. It would be hard to completely lack a sense of chronology if you had actually read the Bible.  Surely nobody would mix up stories this badly on purpose. And surely no angel would be malevolent enough to play a dirty trick like this on anyone, or at least Gabriel would not.

Edit: In response to comments citing particular verses of the Koran which supposedly give Gabriel a more prominent place than I've suggested above.  We must remember that the Koran is not like the Bible.  You can't just translate the Koran with a formal-equivalence type translational methodology, because it will come out as ungrammatical jibberish.  Muslims admit as much by teaching that "the Koran in untranslatable" and therefore they claim that to really read the Koran you must read it in Arabic.  Contrary to this, the KJV translators write in their preface that even the "meanest" (i.e. roughest) translation of the Bible is still the word of God.  The reason is we don't have to supplement a bunch of tradition and stuff from other sources to even end up with a grammatical sentence when translating the Bible. But with the Koran, you pretty much do.  So without Islamic tradition and all the details that it adds about Gabriel and so on, it would be very hard to produce a translation of the Koran that's even barely readable. If you were, however, to attempt to wade through a literal, formal-equivalence, translation of the Koran, you would find all this stuff about Gabriel and several other things to be missing.  This is another proof, in my estimation, that the Koran does not come from any kind of supernatural source, neither from God or any angel, nor from Satan or any demon, but merely from the mind of a man.


How did the doctrine of the pope having "supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls" originate? The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, "supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls"

This is the text of paragraph 937 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. How did this text get here? What council or authority decided that this is the doctrine of the Catholic Church?

Paragraph 937 of the Catechism is part of an "In Brief" section that occurs at the end of every topic of the Catechism. The "In Brief" sections are intended to summarize the paragraphs that have gone before. In this case, the paragraph is restating material that occurs in paragraphs 881 and 882. In particular:

"For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church."
paragraph 881

This is a quote from the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium. The Scriptural references supporting the statement are John 21:15-17 (" Feed my sheep") and Matthew 16:18-19.
Similarly, the constitution Pastor aeternus, promulgated by the First Vatican Council, states in Chapter III:

Full power was given to [the Roman Pontiff], in Blessed Peter, by Jesus Christ our Lord, to pasture, to rule, and to govern the Universal Church...

The specific quote that appears in paragraph 937 itself is found in the preface to the decree Christus Dominus, promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1965.


What is the biblical basis for the belief that good works are the fruits of faith? It is common for Protestant doctrinal statements to say that good works are the fruits of faith. For example:

  We confess that good works are necessary fruits of faith in the life of a Christian and that they proceed from a renewed heart that is thankful to God for His mercy and love. Although there is no human cooperation in the matter of one’s conversion and justification, there is a cooperation on the part of the regenerate Christian in his or her life of sanctification. Good works do not earn or contribute to one’s salvation, but they naturally flow from the living faith which is present in the hearts of those who have already been saved by God’s grace alone. ("We Believe, Teach and Confess," Evangelical Lutheran Synod, italics added)

And:

  Although good works, which are the fruits of faith, and follow after justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God's judgment; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and spring out of a true and lively faith, insomuch that by them a lively faith may be as evidently known as a tree is discerned by its fruit. (The Articles of Religion of the Methodist Church, italics added)

What is the biblical basis for the belief that good works are the fruits of faith?

Please note that I am not asking whether good works are necessary for salvation, whether people of faith should do good works, and so on. Nor am I asking for the biblical basis of good works being a result of being saved, flowing from Christ, and so on.

I am asking specifically for the biblical basis of the belief that good works are the fruits of faith, the result of faith, flow from faith, and similar formulations.

Does the Bible anywhere state this clearly? If not, what Bible passages are quoted by Protestant churches and major Protestant theologians to support this belief, and how do they interpret those passages to support it?

I am asking specifically for the biblical basis of the belief that
  good works are the fruits of faith.

Hebrews 11 addresses this directly.

Verse 6 is instructive, for it tells us that without faith it is impossible to please God. The rest of the chapter goes on to tell us how the ancients expressed their faith. Their works were the fruits -- the outflow, the results -- of their faith. Another way to put it is that these men and women would not have acted the way they had if they did not have faith in God and what He said to them.

Noah heard God tell him about the ark and the coming judgment. He believed God, so he built it.

Moses heard God tell him about leading the exodus. He believed God, so he obeyed and led the Israelites out.

Abraham believed God and showed it by following through on what was said of him. Throughout the chapter, we see that faith motivated them to act.

If faith means "to believe without proof," then these passages don't make any sense. When you apply the biblical definition to the verses -- having a firm conviction that something is so -- then all the verses give light. This is how you know someone has a firm conviction of God's word -- she follows through on the words.

The biblical idea of faith in these verses indicate that if you really believe that what you heard or read comes from God, then you will act on what you believe. There are no armchair Christians pleasing God. As James 2:36 says, "Faith without works is dead." The faith of those in Hebrews 11 was not dead.

Note that in Galatians, the works of faith are being distinguished from ongoing religious rituals, forms, rules, and laws. The “faith that works through love” (Galatians 5:6) is a faith that responds in obedience to what God has said, and the works reflect love for the individual being helped, or one’s love for God, not routine forms of conduct. Read the works of Hebrews 11 and the works of the apostles in Acts and you won’t find faith showing itself as adherence to sets of religious rules and laws, but as obedience to God and love for neighbor.


How many Christians believe there is time in Heaven? "It seems that the idea that created beings become timeless in heaven is not one that is widely held. God, as the Creator of time, space, and matter, is the only Being that exists outside of time, space, and matter."

That is a quote I have taken from a commentator on this very site (I would gladly cite WHO if I felt this was wanted or indeed, allowed). To me, the idea of time passing just the same in Heaven is, frankly, awful- you'd always be a traveller and never reach a complete conclusion...even if perfect happiness were yours, you'd still be going on to the next thing and then the next...). BUT, I confess, a great many (if this site is anything to go by- MOST...) Christians believe otherwise. Even (hauntingly) my hero, CS Lewis, seems to disagree with me on that score.
Do most Christians believe Time WILL continue in Heaven?

I realise (before anyone leaps there) that this question begs an OPINION. So let me rephrase the question a little bit...

In the magority of written works, sermons and opinions heard by you lovely folk, have they been supportive or against the idea of a timeless Heaven?

I suppose one must also throw into the ring, whether the Biblical account of Heaven is literal or symbolic...if literal, then (as it does refer to things like 'months' passing) we must realise there IS time.

Christians are diverse in their view about time and eternity but nonetheless, it does not affect orthodox teachings.

Eternity- without beginning or ending. The Father, Son and Spirit are the only persons who are eternal.

Time- the measure of any activity done either by sense in action (as in "I did it") or by sense in the stars, moon and sun (as in 9:30 pm).Immortals such as men's spirits and angels has a beginning but no ending. Mortals such as humans has both beginning and ending.

Every activity or acts of God has time in it. God makes his own time by acting. Action demands time. Or to put it more clearly:

  Action is something that is done. "Done" means it was completed in the
  past. When you do something, "do" is in the present tense. Both past
  and present tense is in relation to time. Therefore, action demands
  time.

The difference between God's time and our sense of time is that in us, change is involved in time because we are in the realm of space and matter while in God, time does not involved change because he is outside space and matter.

The Classic example of this view of time is in the doctrine of Eternal Generation of the Son:

God is outside our time but he himself is coeval with his own time as anthropomorphic revelation in the Bible allows. The Scripture says that God does things and thus, he has his own time for action demands time. In us humans, we understand God’s activities via our own concept of time.

God did accurately communicate with us his reality. Hence, the begetting of the Son is always said to be done at the present time in order to reveal the nature of the begetting as without beginning nor ending because the begetter himself is without beginning and ending ( Exodus 3:14 LXX, Psalm 45:1 LXX, Proverbs 8:25 LXX, Hebrews 1:5, 5:5, Acts 13:33)

It seems like it's explicit in the Bible that time exists in heaven:

Revelation 4:8 Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under its wings. Day and night they never stop saying:“‘Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come.

Revelation 8:1 When he opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven for about half an hour.

Revelation 6:10-11 "How long, O Lord, holy and true, will You refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?"And there was given to each of them a white robe; and they were told that they should rest for a little while longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brethren who were to be killed even as they had been, would be completed also.


Does Catholicism teach that there is a just interest rate? Is there a 'just interest rate'?  We see banks having interest rates when loaning money.  Can this be done justly? I am interested in the Catholic viewpoint.

Is there a 'just interest rate'?

The “just rate of interest” is the fair rate of interest which should corresponds to the average gain that those engaged in business may generally expect in a determined centre.

According to the Catholic Church, the Catholic Encyclopedia explains it as such:

  Just rate of interest

  Even today one can still sin against justice by demanding too high an interest, or usury, as it is called. What interest then is just and moderate? Theoretically, and in an abstract way, the fair rate of interest nearly corresponds to the average gain that those engaged in business may generally expect in a determined centre. It nearly corresponds, for the interest being guaranteed, whilst the profit is uncertain, we must discount the value of an insurance premium from the average profit. Accordingly, in a determined centre, if those who sink their money in buildings, land, or industrial undertakings generally look for a profit of 6 percent, the just rate of interest will be about 4 or 5 percent. This rate covers the risks and ordinary inconveniences of lending. But if one had to run special risks or had to give up an extraordinary premium, one might in all justice exact a higher rate of interest. Such, therefore, is the theoretical rule. In practice, however, as even the answer of the Sacred Penitentiary shows (18 April, 1889), the best course is to conform to the usages established amongst men, precisely as one does with regard to other prices, and, as happens in the case of such prices, particular circumstances influence the rate of interest, either by increasing or lowering it. In this way, the security offered by advances to the governments of wealthy countries and those that cover mortgages diminish the rate for public loans and loans on mortgage. On the contrary, the interest on shipping, and mercantile business is higher than that in civil business, on account of the greater uncertainty in sea voyages and in commercial enterprise.


Why did Nehemiah need to tell us that the Queen was sitting beside the King? What is the significance of knowing that the queen was sitting next to the king during this conversation in Nehemiah? Was there some historical or cultural significance to the queen being present that adds an element to the story?

  Nehemiah 2:5-6 ESV -  And I said to the king, “If it pleases the king, and if your servant has found favor in your sight, that you send me to Judah, to the city of my fathers' graves, that I may rebuild it.” And the king said to me (the queen sitting beside him), “How long will you be gone, and when will you return?” So it pleased the king to send me when I had given him a time.

In this Matthew Henry commentary over on blueletterbible.org (a great research site!), he notes evidence from the book of Esther that it seemed to be uncommon for the queen to be in the king's presence in a Persian court.  Henry suggests that the queen had some interest or motive for being there, whether she was perhaps a false friend trying to hinder Nehemiah's (and God's) purposes, or an honest ally trying to advance them.  Henry notes that either way it's significant and a credit to God:  either He allowed the request to succeed in spite of a troublesome queen, or He aided its success by making sure the helpful queen was there.

Based on my own personal experiences I think that second option is worth considering.  When I find myself in a potentially contentious situation -- say, being rearended by some teenager who had his nose buried in his phone instead of watching the road -- I'm more prone to be temperate and generous in my responses if my wife's with me, vs. if I'm in the car alone.  The king's merciful and generous response to Nehemiah's request might have been subtly prompted in the same way.


What's the Protestants' view on the purpose of sacraments? Once an orthodox priest told me that Protestants themselves don't know what they need the sacraments for. He said that since they deny the doctrine of transubstantiation and have separated themselves from Apostolic succession of the universal Church, they don't experience the partaking of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4) through sacraments, especially through Eucharist.

He also said that Protestants' assertion that the sacrament of Eucharist is only needed as a reminder is rather ridiculous as "anyone can be reminded of that through hearing a sermon or through reading the Word". He said he doesn't deny that Eucharist has a function of a reminder, but there are some way deeper things pertaining to Eucharist that Protestants completely miss out on.

Honestly, he kind of needled me by that.

However, I am asking this question not so as to argue with him in the future, but to find out what Protestants themselves have to say on this regard - how do they view the purpose of sacraments.

I address this question to all Protestant Christians, in other words to those Christians who believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and the very God Himself as God the Father is, and who also believe that there couldn't be one man who would solely be a representative of God to the Church, and those who also believe that the Universal Church can be spread and grow through merely sharing and hearing the Gospel, regardless of whether or not the one who shares that Gospel belongs to the Apostolic succession.

Asking "What do Protestants think about the sacraments?" is a bit misleading. There are a large variety of Protestant views, some of them are more traditional than others. The question as to whether Protestant groups are wholly divorced from the Apostolic succession is also not 100% correct. There are a few clearly Protestant groups who have at least some claim to succession (Certain Anglicans, the Old Catholic Church, etc.).

This is a statement from the Presbyterian Church of the USA (PCUSA):

  In the words of John Calvin, sacraments are "a testimony of divine grace toward us, confirmed by an outward sign, with mutual attestation of our piety toward [God]." A sacrament is a testimony of God's favor toward the church, confirmed by an outward sign, with a mutual testifying of our godliness toward God. It is a primal, physical act that signifies a spiritual relationship between personal beings.

Here's the Lutheran perspective (ELCA):

  Contemporary theologians, especially Edward Schillebeeckx, have said that Christ is the "primordial sacrament." The grace that is received in the sacraments is the grace of Christ. In the two sacraments of Baptism and Eucharist Jesus Christ is the content of the sacrament as well as the minister of the sacrament. In both sacraments it is the whole Christ who encounters us. The sacraments are wonderful ways in which Christ is present to us. This is not to deny that Christ is present to us in other ways as well, but if we look at Christ’s command and Christ’s promise it is obvious that two actions are central.

The United Methodist Church (UMC) has similar thoughts:

  Like baptism, Holy Communion is regarded by Protestants as a sacrament. That is, it’s an act of worship ordained by Christ and is a means of grace. This does not mean that we become any more worthy of God’s grace by taking part in Communion. Rather, we open ourselves to the divine love that’s already there; we become more ready to receive that love and to respond to it.


In Roman Catholicism, what is the right way of praying for the salvation of departed souls? In Roman Catholicism, I understand that as per traditions, while praying for the salvation of departed souls, we usually have to recite “Our Father and Hail Mary”.  Are there any Church guidelines along these lines? There is some confusion as to whether we should conclude this with “Glory to the Father and the Son ....” or not. Either way, what is the significance of concluding it with or without "Glory to...." at the end?

I think there's two questions here:

What is the "Glory to the Father" prayer? and

What is the proper way to pray for the dead?

The "Glory to the Father" prayer is a doxology and is a traditional way to end a prayer or series of prayers.  It's prayed at the end of each decade of the Rosary and at the end of each psalm in a psalter such as the Liturgy of the Hours.
A pious custom is to recite 3 Hail Mary's, 3 Our Father's and 3 Glory Be's when visiting a church. I believe that constitutes a partial indulgence (under the normal criteria), which is a good and easy way to get an indulgence every day.

... the Holy Council says, “that the usage of Indulgences is most wholesome to Christian people, Indulgentiarum usum Christiano populo maxime salutarem esse;” wherefore it ought to be a holy duty in every Christian to endeavour to gain them, as far as he is able, as well for his own spiritual good, as by way of suffrage in behalf of the faithful departed.
From the Raccolta

Even though it's not the norm for the Church any more, the Raccolta is chuck full of different prayers that could be prayed to receive indulgences and those indulgences can be applied to a holy soul in purgatory.
So, I think you do need to pray a Glory Be prayer, if that indulgence is specifically what you're going for.


Why are the bread and wine mixed together in the Holy Eucharist during an Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy? When and why was the practice of commixture started? What is the theological significance of mixing the two together?

The origins of this tradition can be found as early as 120AD in the practice of fermentum, whereby a piece of consecrated bread was broken off and sent to another community in another place for a separate - yet now connected - Eucharistic celebration, thereby expressing the unity of the Church through communion. (The Roots of the Catholic Tradition)

When this practice of traveling leaven was no longer taken up, a piece of the locally consecrated bread was dropped into the chalice and the tradition was explained through various allegory and metaphor, one of which being: this commixture symbolizes the reunion (resurrection) of Christ’s body and soul which were separated at the cross. (The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia)

The actual word commixture and this notion that Christ essentially puts his power “on hold” before the resurrection, we find in The Life Hidden or Veiled by the Sacramental Species from Cardinal Cienfuegos (1657-1739):

  This life Christ the Lord Himself as High Priest alone sacrifices and
  offers inasmuch as by the sway of His human will he suspends or
  removes the vital actions miraculously produced, and determines not to
  elicit any further action or to use the instrumental power of
  producing them according to His will, until by a kind of resurrection
  in the commemoration of the resurrection in the commixture of the body
  and the blood He resumes the actual life and free use of instrumental
  power.

In his book A History of The Doctrine of The Holy Eucharist, Vol. 2, Darwell Stone writes this of Cardnial Cienfuegos proposal:

  Upon this opinion he built up a theory that in the Eucharistic
  sacrifices our Lord offers this life of the senses and suspends these
  vital actions until the mystical representation of the resurrection in
  the commixture of consecrated elements at the placing of a fragment of
  the host in the chalice; and that this suspension constitutes the
  sacrifice.

As you may have gathered, this tradition is not exclusive to the Orthodox tradition. It is practiced in the Catholic tradition (at least it was when I was an altar boy 45 years ago) and in the Episcopal tradition as well. (4)


What exactly IS Hell? I'm not disputing that Hell exists, what I want to know is WHAT IS HELL?

In my opinion there are only two possible answers, but you might inform me of something else. Many people have argued that evil is the absence of God, hell must be evil, thus hell is the separation of us from God. As poetic as this sounds, I've never found the scripture to back this up. Maybe you have some that I haven't read yet.

The second option in my understanding is that hell is the wrath of God against the disobedient. I have found one piece of scripture that debatable states that God is in Hell, but not what He is doing down there.

Can you set me straight with the scripture that I need to understand the lake of fire?

This is what we know of "Hell".

It's a place of darkness

Jude 1:13 (NIV)

  They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever.

It's a place of torment

Luke 16:28 (NIV)

  for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

It's a place of fire

Jesus says in Matthew 13:42 (NIV)

  They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

It is eternal

Mark 9:48 (NIV)

  where “‘the worms that eat them do not die, and the fire is not quenched.’

It is separation for God

Matthew 25:41 (NIV)

  “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

God does not want you to go to Hell

John 3:17 (NIV)

  For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

Those are the highlights.  There are many other places that support each one of those facts.  I just picked a nice representative of each verse.


What does it mean to interpret the Bible literally? Here are some common definitions from a dictionary for ‘literal’:

Being in accordance with, conforming to, or upholding the exact or primary meaning of a word or words.
Word for word; verbatim: a literal translation.
Avoiding exaggeration, metaphor, or embellishment; factual; prosaic: a literal description; a literal mind.

So what does it mean then to ‘take the Bible literally?’ Which definition are we referring to when we say ‘I take the Bible literally?’

There is a spectrum of literal biblical reading, but basically it boils down to the degree to which one believes in the historicity (in the modern sense) of the Bible.
Archeological evidence only goes back as far as a steele mentioning the "House of David," so for modern academics, the historicity of say, Moses, Abraham, and Adam and Eve are all at least suspect.  Opinion varies as to whether, say, a baby boy who should have been murdered was actually set adrift in a boat made of bull rushes. A literalist would say, yes, this literally happened, and a liberal would say that it is a mere birth narrative to set the tone for who Moses would be.  Likewise, a liberal would say that clearly a few Hebrew slaves probably escaped across a "Reed Sea" (a swamp) whereas a literalist would, with no evidence to the contrary, state that in fact 525,000 Israelite men plus their wives and children pass through the Red Sea, with the waves held back on either side and Charleton Heston in front holding a stick.  The same analysis holds for an actual Adam and Eve, whether or not a woman named Tamar really did seduce her father-in-law, and a whole host of other stories.
As one who is probably more literal than most, I would suggest there are a few categories in which to consider the question:

Parables and other stories identified as such:
When Jesus told the parable of the Good Samaritan, for example, he pretty clearly identifies it as such.  Now, I've driven through the West Bank up from Jericho to Jerusalem, and along the way, you can pass the "Inn of the Good Samaritan."  Some people will say that is in fact a real event in history.  This is an extreme form of literalism which negates the possibility of Jesus using metaphor- a stance mostly restricted to ultra-conservatives.

Historical events that have miraculous involvement:
Very few scholars would now argue that there was no King David.  Very few also doubt that there was a big Philistine named Goliath whom he killed.  The question is typically along the lines of, "Was he really just a boy with a sling?"  As a literalist who believes that God does intervene in history, I tend to view this as an actual event that occurs more or less as the Bible describes it.  Could it have been four stones in his pouch instead of five?  For me, that would be an irrelevant detail - for an inerrantist it would be a requirement.  For a liberal, the entire story was probably an embellishment after a real knock down, drag out battle, and the details grew in the retelling.

Prehistorical / Other more figurative:
Genesis 1 -11, parts of Daniel, Zechariah, and Revelation are special cases, in that scholars often disagree as to whether or not these were meant to be understood as history or legend.  Along these lines, Job appears in the section of the Old Testament called the "Ketuvi'im" or "Writings" alongside Psalms, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes.  It may be that the original author intended this as a story all along, or it could be real, or it could be "historical fiction."  As there is no title page on the book of Job, it could be analagous to finding one of Shakespeare's plays - and that could mean anything from Henry V to Romeo and Juliet.  Imagine if you had no historical reference to figure it out.  Likewise, Daniel is not billed as historical (it's in the Nevi'im), and yet it has more historical detail in certain points than many textbooks.

The question with all of this then is the degree to which a reader ascribes historicity to a narrative.  Keep in mind that prior to Thuycidides, even the very notion of a story that attempts to merely describe historical events (while still making a point) wasn't really even an idea, and you'll see why there is controversy.  People can argue hermeneutics (the science of how a text should be interpreted) and archeology all day long - the fact is that there is a choice that must be made a priori, and understanding the implications of that for one's theology is the real heart of the matter.


In Matthew 5:25 what does it mean to be in the way with our adversary? Jesus Christ said the following words recorded in Matthew 5:25 "Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison."

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/matt/5.25?lang=eng#24

Similarly in 3 Nephi 25-26 of the book of Mormon when Jesus Christ visited the people in America after his resurrection he spoke the words "Agree with thine adversary quickly while thou art in the way with him, lest at any time he shall get thee, and thou shalt be cast into prison. Verily, verily, I say unto thee, thou shalt by no means come out thence until thou hast paid the uttermost senine. And while ye are in prison can ye pay even one senine? Verily, verily, I say unto you, Nay."

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/3-ne/12.25?lang=eng#24

What does it mean to be in the way with your adversary?

How would these verses apply to real life?

The meaning of Matthew 5:25 may be clearer if you consult a more recent translation:

  Come to terms quickly while you are on the way to court with him, or your accuser may hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you will be thrown into prison. [NRSV]


Do Lutherans define Justification and Atonement as different things? I was considering the doctrine of Lutheran Unlimited/Universal Atonement, which says Christ died for everyone's sins. However, the fact stands that not all people go to heaven – thus not all people's sins were "Paid" for.

So I decided, since Justification is:

  the action of declaring or making righteous in the sight of God.

Then all people who did not go to heaven, are Not Justified.

However, according to Lutheran Unlimited Atonement, all people received Atonement. Yet not all people received Justification – because not all people are given salvation.

So I want to ask a Lutheran, How do you define Atonement?

Articles 3 and 4 of the Augsburg Confession (part of the Lutheran Confessions) talk about this: The Augsburg Confession (Chief Articles of Faith: Article III: Of the Son of God and Article IV: Of Justification).

Article 3 makes the point that Christ "truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, that He might reconcile the Father unto us, and be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men."  This is the Atonement; Christ died for our sins (in a similar way, the book of Hebrews also talks about Christ as both the High Priest and the sacrifice, particularly Hebrews 9:11 and following).

Article 4 then talks about justification: "... men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for Christ's sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ's sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins. This faith God imputes for righteousness in His sight. Rom. 3 and 4."

So, we are justified before God when we believe that Christ's sacrifice (the atonement) is for us.  That is, we receive the benefits of the atonement, simply by believing that these benefits are for us.

Another way I've heard it put is that it takes one to forgive, but two to reconcile.  God forgives us freely due to the sacrifice of Christ (the atonement).  But, for us to be reconciled to Him (another way of thinking of justification), we must believe that this forgiveness is ours (i.e. have faith).