According to the Catholic Church, do guardian angels graduate? I received two conflicting reports from two women whose catholicity I highly respect, but whose sources are circumspect, or at the very least circumlocutory.

One says that if and when we get to heaven, our guardian angel gets
promoted up the ranks.
The other says that if and when we get to heaven, our guardian angel
stays with us, and remains our guardian angel in heaven.

I'm not an expert, nor do I know if these things can be known. However, I do know a contradiction when I see one. Which is right? Do our angels graduate, or do they remain with us in Eternity?

Catholic answers only, please - no Sylvia Browne.

I don't think angels can be promoted from one order to another within the 9 orders. Simply because they are in that specific order by their very nature. Just like a dog can't be a cat or a Rose can never be Lilly.

Also note that they are helping us to save our souls because God wanted them to do that, not to get "promotion" in their Job. After the end of their duty, the angelic orders will continue to exist, but their offices will not be altogether the same as they now are, for they will then no longer need to help human beings in the process of saving their souls.

  The distinction of grades among the angels ... will ever remain in the angels; for these differences of natures cannot be taken from them unless they themselves be corrupted. The difference of glory will also ever remain in them according to the difference of preceding merit. As to the execution of the angelic offices ... It will cease accordingly as their offices are directed towards leading others to their end; but it will remain, accordingly as it agrees with the attainment of the end.  Summa Theologica 1:108:7

As said above by St. Thomas Aquinas the only purpose of Guardian angel is to save our souls, their function towards us cease to exist after we enter heaven or hell. (Since we are in the process of being cleansed, our angels do continue to pray for us and urge saints and humans to pray for us when we are in purgatory)

Also remember:

Our Guardian Angels are not our servants but our masters.src
In heaven we will have God and so we will lack nothing. He will be our only need and our provider of our need, we will not need an angel's help anymore.


From Genesis to Exodus - is God dealing with Israelites or Jews? Finished reading Genesis and now that I'm on Exodus, I get the impression God is dealing with Israelites and not Jews. Is this because Jacob was given the name Israel, so all his descendants were called Israelites?

Yes, that's right.

The origin of "Jew" actually comes from Judah, one of the sons and tribes of Jacob/Israel. When the Kingdom of Israel splits after Solomon, the dominant tribe of the southern kingdom was Judah, and so it came to be called the Kingdom of Judah. Though there have always been descendents of all the sons and tribes of Israel, the prominence of Judah meant that "Jew" came to be used as a synecdoche for the whole of the nation of Israel after the exile.


100 Year Anniversaries? - Sacred Heart of Jesus May 13, 2017 will see the 100th anniversary of the Apparitions of Our Lady of Fátima at Fatima, Portugal. Many of the prophecies may or may not be fulfilled according to how an individual interprets them. This is not of any concern to me in this question.

As the anniversary of Fatima is drawing near , I noticed that Our Lord appeared to St Margaret Mary Alacoque (1647-1690), between the years 1673 and 1689. What was interesting to me was the fact that on June 17, 1689 Our Lord wanted France to be consecrated to his Sacred Heart:

  Our Lord also told the saint to tell the Catholic King Louis XIV that France must be solemnly consecrated to His Sacred Heart. This command, too, was ignored by the king and also by his heirs and descendants. As a result, France – first daughter of the Church – was not "triumphant over all the enemies of Holy Church" when France was besieged by the “enemies of the Church.” - The Example of the King of France

What was interesting in all this is the fact that on the 100th anniversary of this particular apparition, Louis XVI of France lost his crown:

  Exactly one hundred years later, on June 17, 1789, the reigning Catholic king of France (Louis XVI) was stripped of his kingly power and authority by the godless “Third Estate” of the French Revolution. Thus the Reign of Terror went into full motion.

My question is this: Are there any Catholic authors that have written of the possibility of other Catholic prophecies being connected (fulfilled) to exactly one century intervals (date to date) from the date of any other particular apparitions or prophecies mentioned?

I found this as a source on the miracle of the sun wiki and it might at least lead to the start of an answer.  Not so much in terms of good things happening in centuries, maybe two centuries.

From the perspective of 2017, the timing also seems propitious. The apparitions took place four centuries after the start of the Protestant Reformation in 1517, and two centuries after the founding of the first Grand Lodge of the Freemasons in London in 1717, milestones in the shift from Catholicism to religious indifferentism. On the very day of the miracle of the sun in 1917, the Petrograd Soviet took military control in Russia, paving the way for atheistic communism to begin its ruinous domination of much of the world, persecuting the Church and leading to the cruel deaths of tens of millions of people.
Fr Andrew Pinsent - Fatima at 100 - Catholic Herald

So, that's 1517, 1717, 1917, so I guess we might get another hundred years before something else happens.
Semi-likewise Pope John Paul II published an encyclical called Centesimus Annus which was to commemorate the 100th anniversary of Pope Leo XIII's awesome encyclical Rerum Novarum.  But there was also a 40 year commemorative encyclical (named as such) and a 90 year commemorative encyclical (not named for the year).  This could be because 100 and 40 are "important" to Catholics, 90 not so much, or because no one knows the Latin for 90. But one thing is for sure, Pope John Paul II wanted to make it clear that everything Pope Leo XIII said would happen in 1892 did happen if the forces of Capitalism continued unbridled, the servile state became the norm and separate classes of laws were made for the rich and poor.  I don't think anyone particularly looks forward to 2068's told-you-so commemoration of Humane Vitae, but there was a minor hubub at its 40th.
I don't know if you can blend Church commemorations with supernatural events, but the Church is a supernatural force and we are spiritual beings.  It's clear from our physiology that 100 years is a marker in the natural lifespan of man and sociology and the Bible places 40 years as a marker in the natural lifespan of generations.  So the time in which it takes a prophecy to be fulfilled could very well 100 years.
Given the conversion of calendaring systems though, leap years etc..., it seems that things happening to the day would be a bit of a game that we would be making up for God to play.


Can a Christian in a state of grace know that they are? Based on the question "Should Catholics in a state of grace call themselves sinners?"

Does Catholic doctrine allow for such a person to come to know of their state of grace while living?

To the question of "Whether man can know that he has grace?" (Summa Theologica I-II q. 112 a. 5), St. Thomas Aquinas responds by explaining the ways the reality of grace can or cannot be known:

There are three ways of knowing a thing:

by revelation, and thus anyone may know that he has grace, for God by a special privilege reveals this at times to some, in order that the joy of safety may begin in them even in this life, and that they may carry on toilsome works with greater trust and greater energy, and may bear the evils of this present life, as when it was said to Paul (2 Cor. 12:9): "My grace is sufficient for thee."

a man may, of himself, know something, and with certainty; and in this way no one can know that he has grace. For certitude about a thing can only be had when we may judge of it by its proper principle. Thus it is by undemonstrable universal principles that certitude is obtained concerning demonstrative conclusions. Now no one can know he has the knowledge of a conclusion if he does not know its principle. But the principle of grace and its object is God, Who by reason of His very excellence is unknown to us, according to Job 36:26: "Behold God is great, exceeding our knowledge." And hence His presence in us and His absence cannot be known with certainty, according to Job 9:11: "If He come to me, I shall not see Him; if He depart I shall not understand." And hence man cannot judge with certainty that he has grace, according to 1 Cor. 4:3,4: "But neither do I judge my own self … but He that judgeth me is the Lord."

things are known conjecturally by signs; and thus anyone may know he has grace, when he is conscious of delighting in God, and of despising worldly things, and inasmuch as a man is not conscious of any mortal sin. And thus it is written (Apoc. 2:17): "To him that overcometh I will give the hidden manna … which no man knoweth, but he that receiveth it," because whoever receives it knows, by experiencing a certain sweetness, which he who does not receive it, does not experience. Yet this knowledge is imperfect; hence the Apostle says (1 Cor. 4:4): "I am not conscious to myself of anything, yet am I not hereby justified," since, according to Ps. 18:13: "Who can understand sins? From my secret ones cleanse me, O Lord, and from those of others spare Thy servant."

source: this answer to the question "What are the practical effects of sanctifying grace?"


Why is the book of Hebrews named that? The book of Hebrews in the New Testament shares a name with the Hebrew people of the Mosaic Law. Why was that book named Hebrews?

It's called that because it was written as a letter to Hebrews.  Most of the Epistles are titled after the group they were written to.  (Corinthians was written to the Church at Corinth, etc.)

From http://christianity.about.com/od/newtestamentbooks/a/Book-Of-Hebrews.htm

  Date Written:

  Hebrews was written before the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction
  of the Temple in 70 A.D. Written To:

  Hebrew Christians who were wavering in their faith and all future
  readers of the Bible.

There's more similar information all over, including Wikipedia.


Why do most Christians not follow the Talmud? If I'm not misunderstanding anything, Jews usually follow the Tanakh (more or less the Old Testament) and the Talmud, but definitely not the New Testament, whereas Christians follow the Old and New Testaments but not the Talmud. So, among those who believe in the Old Testament, people usually follow the Talmud if and only if they do not believe in the New Testament.

Why is this? Are the Talmud and the New Testament incompatible, or is the combination simply unfashionable or something?

The Talmud "takes the form of a record of rabbinic discussions pertaining to Jewish law, ethics, philosophy, customs and history." (Wikipedia)  It was written by ancient Rabbis as discussions and interpretations of the scriptures of the Tanakh (Old Testament).

The New Testament teaches that Scripture must be given by inspiration of God.  As the Talmud was not, and does not claim to be, inspired writing, it is not considered authoritative by Christians.

Also, many of the passages of the Talmud are dedicated to interpretations of various provisions of the Law of Moses, which Christians believe were fulfilled in Christ and no longer apply, which makes a great deal of the Talmud not only non-authoritative but also irrelevant, from a Christian perspective.


Does Christianity have any dietary guidelines? Based solely on recollection from my childhood religious education, I understand that by Christian doctrine (regarding a vision/revelation Peter had), Jesus fulfilled the law and so the Jewish dietary laws (kosher) are not required to be followed anymore.

How fully does this apply?  Do Christians get any "kudos" by eating kosher?  I understand that salvation would have nothing to do with it, but is it considered a "good work" anyway for whatever that's worth?  Do any other dietary suggestions/guidelines/laws apply to Christians?

Nope.  There are no restrictions.

We can even eat food sacrificed to idols.  This passage in 1 Corinthians talks about that.  The passage ends with the verse:

  1 Corinthians 8:8 (NIV)
  But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.

Having said this, the author continues with:

  1 Corinthians 8:9-10 (NIV)
  Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak. For if someone with a weak conscience sees you, with all your knowledge, eating in an idol’s temple, won’t that person be emboldened to eat what is sacrificed to idols?

Essentially, we can eat anything that we can keep down that doesn't kill us.  However, this is providing that we do not cause others to sin.  (Though this is primarily in reference to food sacrificed to idols.)


Are there examples of English words and phrases that are associated with blasphemy of the Virgin Mary? You may have heard "For the love of God" or "For God's sakes", but those are directed at God or Christ or both.

But are there examples of English words and phrases that are associated with or evolved from minced oaths and outright blasphemies of the Virgin Mary? Since the Virgin Mary is such an important figure in Christianity, it's logical to think that some Christians will hold that blasphemy against Mary is a serious offence, even if not as serious as blasphemy against God.

People exclaim, "Mother of God!" when they see something astonishing, which would be a minced oath towards Mary.


According to the Catholic Church, why is God called “Father” (and not, say, “Mother”)? Throughout the Bible, Jesus specifically refers to God as Father, and us as his sons.

Why is it significant that God is a Father? Why did God choose the image of “Father,” as opposed to other relationships that God created, such as that of Mother, to describe Himself?

How is this viewed in the Catholic Church?

The short answer is that, from the Catholic Church’s perspective, God did not merely choose to reveal Himself as Father. Rather, He is Father by nature, in two respects: through the eternal generation of the Son in the Holy Trinity, and in His act of creating, especially the creation of those creatures that are “in his image” (see Gen. 1:26). Therefore, human fatherhood is best viewed as a partaking in the Divine Fatherhood of God, one that, by God’s design, is most apt for understanding Divine Fatherhood.

The use of the term “Father,” therefore, is not to be viewed as a concession to the patriarchal culture of the time, but as revealing the very nature of God.

Divine Fatherhood in the Scriptures.

As the question says, the Scriptures—both the Old and the New Testament (the New more explicitly than the Old)—take great pains to reveal God as Father.

In the Old Testament, God is referred to numerous times as “Father,” although the name of Father never clearly acquires a meaning beyond the metaphorical. For example, there is Deuteronomy 32:6:

  Do you thus repay the LORD, you foolish and senseless people? Is not he your father, who created you, who made you and established you? (ESV).

or Isaiah 63:16

  For you are our Father, though Abraham does not know us, and Israel does not acknowledge us; you, O LORD, are our Father, our Redeemer from of old is your name.

(For quite a good overview of God the Father in the Old Testament, see “The Fatherhood of God” on http://biblestudytools.com.)

In the New Testament, of course, it is well known that Jesus calls God his Father and instructs us to do the same. (See, above all, the Lord’s Prayer,
Matthew 6:9-13 and Luke 11:2-4; also John 20:17.)

Notably missing—in either Testament—is any reference to God as “mother,” despite the fact that God clearly has attributes that might be considered “maternal." For example, God comforts His people as a mother comforts her child (Isaiah 66:13); like a nursing mother, He will never forget His people (Isaiah 49:15); He longed to gather Jerusalem as a hen gathers her chicks (Luke 13:34). (See my source for these examples.) There are also multiple references to God’s “tender compassion” (e.g., Luke 1:68-79).

Is the reference to the Father necessary, or merely a cultural concession?

Having established the fact that God revealed Himself as “Father,” the question now is establishing why.

The reason comes from the very nature of the Holy Trinity. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) puts it,

  Jesus revealed that God is Father in an unheard-of sense: he is Father not only in being Creator; he is eternally Father in relation to his only Son, who is eternally Son only in relation to his Father: “No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him” (No. 240, quoting Mt. 11:27).

God is Triune—that is, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—by nature from all eternity. The Fatherhood of God is not simply a “persona” that God assumed; it is He very Being. (He is also Son and Holy Spirit, of course.) He is also “Father” in the sense that His act of creating resembles the generation that is proper to human fatherhood (strictly speaking, as I mention below, it is more a question human fatherhood resembling God’s Fatherhood).

As the Catechism explains, human fatherhood is an image of or participation in God’s Fatherhood:

  By calling God “Father”, the language of faith indicates two main things: that God is the first origin of everything and transcendent authority; and that he is at the same time goodness and loving care for all his children (No. 239).

It is clear, therefore, that God is Father by nature, and calling Him so does not depend on merely cultural considerations.

Order of being, order of knowledge

At this point, it is useful to distinguish two aspects of this problem: there is an ontological order (the order of being), which deals with things as they really are, independently of our knowledge; and there is the order of knowledge, which deals with how we come to know that reality.

It should be noted that God is perfectly ineffable; that is, we are able to know Him only to the degree that He reveals Himself to us (either through His effects in creation, or through Revelation). As the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) puts it,

  We firmly believe and confess without reservation that there is only one true God, eternal infinite (immensus) and unchangeable, incomprehensible, almighty and ineffable, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; three persons indeed, but one essence, substance or nature entirely simple (Canon 1; translation from CCC 202).

Jesus revealed that within the Godhead there is a unique relationship between himself and the Father. Trinitarian theology teaches that the relations from Father to Son and Son to Father (and, of course, from the Holy Spirit to Father and Son) are identical with the Persons themselves:

  252 The Church uses (I) the term “substance” (rendered also at times by “essence” or “nature”) to designate the divine being in its unity, (II) the term “person” or “hypostasis” to designate the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the real distinction among them, and (III) the term "relation" to designate the fact that their distinction lies in the relationship of each to the others (No. 252; also St. Thomas Aquinas describes the Persons as “relations subsisting in the Divine Nature”; see Summa theologiae Ia, q. 30, a. 1 co.)

The relation proper to the Father is called generation (see CCC No. 254) or Fatherhood. This type of fatherhood is, of course, the very first in the order of being, and all creaturely fatherhood partakes in this one.

However in the order of knowledge, the question becomes, “What means did God have at His disposal in order to reveal His Divine Fatherhood to us”? God, as I have mentioned, is ineffable; hence even when He reveals Himself to us, He must make use of those aspects of reality that resemble Him. Indeed, things resemble Him precisely because they are effects of His creative power. (As Aquinas puts it, omne agens agit sibi simile, every agent produces an effect similar to itself; for instance, fire makes other things hot. See, e.g., S.Th. Ia, q. 44, a. 2 arg. 3.)

In other words, when Jesus called God “Father” (and based on that, the Church Fathers called the relation of the Father “generation”), he was employing human fatherhood as an analogy, so that we could have a glimpse into the ineffable mystery of the Holy Trinity.

The name “Father” signifies the essence; the maternal characteristics are attributes.

I mentioned that God does possess many attributes can be expressed by maternal images. As the Catechism says,

  God’s parental tenderness can also be expressed by the image of motherhood, which emphasizes God’s immanence, the intimacy between Creator and creature. The language of faith thus draws on the human experience of parents, who are in a way the first representatives of God for man. But this experience also tells us that human parents are fallible and can disfigure the face of fatherhood and motherhood (No. 239).

Nevertheless, as should be evident from God’s ineffability, God greatly transcends human reality:

  We ought therefore to recall that God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: he is God. He also transcends human fatherhood and motherhood, although he is their origin and standard: no one is father as God is Father (No. 239).

However, when Jesus revealed God as Father, he did so in a way that signifies the very essence of God (namely, the Father as eternally begetting the Son, and God as the creator of all things). “Father,” therefore, is appropriate as a name for God, especially since man knows about the Fatherhood of God only by analogy with human fatherhood.

On the other hand, the “maternal” attributes of God do not signify the essence. (Yes, in the ontological order, God’s attributes are identical with Himself; but we, human beings with limited intellects, are compelled to distinguish between the two in our minds—that is, in the order of knowledge.)

This distinction explains why Jesus commanded us to call God “Father,” as I mentioned above, but not “mother”. This must not be understood in any way as a denigration of human motherhood: rather, human fatherhood and motherhood, from our point of view, signify different aspects of our understanding of God.

The related question: why did God make human fatherhood resemble His own?

The question thus is better reformulated in this way: why did God create human fatherhood to resemble His own Fatherhood? Any attempt to answer this question will necessarily enter into the realm of speculation, but presumably, it is in order that human beings, through human fatherhood, would be able to learn something about Divine Fatherhood—since that is the only way we could know about it.

However, God’s Fatherhood, in the order of being, is eternal and independent of His creatures.


Where can I find Julia Smith's translation of the Septuagint? Julia Smith writes in her preface to her translation of the Bible,

I had studied Latin and Greek at school, and began by translating the
Greek New Testament, and then the Septuagint, from which our Saviour
quoted one or two texts which are not in the Hebrew Bible, and there
is now said to be no Hebrew Bible extant so old as the Septuagint.

https://studybible.info/version/JuliaSmith
The Old Testament in the link above is translated from Hebrew, so I was wondering if her translation of the Septuagint has survived. If so, where can I find it?

On the Textus Receptus website, Julia Smith's translation is listed on the right hand side column underneath Green's Literal Version.
So, you can look up any verse of the Old or New Testament and see that verse as Smith translated it.
The full text can also be read on Biblehub


What are the differences between hamartiology from a Nazarene to a Calvinist perspective? Coming from a Nazarene tradition, influenced by Wesley and the Holiness Movement, my reflections upon sin are based upon the Nazarene manual's definitions (See 5.1,5.3) summarized as

5.1. Original sin, a hereditary sin descended from Adam

5.3. Actual (personal) sin, committed knowingly by a responsible individual. Exclusions are made for involuntary failings, excepting when contradicting the spirit of Christ.

I would be interested in knowing how this relates to other traditions, especially the Calvinist tradition. Does election in the Calvinist tradition have impacts upon the doctrine of sin? Are these concepts of sin standard (that is, agreed upon by most denominations?) within the Christian community at large? Perhaps this is a matter where both traditions agree, but I'm afraid I don't have many Calvinist sounding boards in my immediate vicinity, so I've had a hard time figuring out the distinctions.

No difference.

On the doctrines or original sin and justification by faith Wesleyan and Calvinism seem to run a course along the same stream. Wesley's view of original sin is made clear with few words in a sermon entitled 'SERMON 44 ORIGINAL SIN'.

This sermon on its own clearly shows that Wesley taught the same doctrine as the Protestant reformers, including Luther and Calvin.

Wesley uses the time of the flood as a way to trace 'the nature of man' and then concludes this is a description of humanity at all times, not just then.

  The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. (Genesis 6:5, NIV)

Fixing on the phrase 'God saw all the of the thoughts of his heart', Wesley explains that this means total depravity:

  He “saw all the imaginations:” It is not possible to find a word of a more extensive signification. It includes whatever is formed, made, fabricated within; all that is or passes in the soul; every inclination,affection, passion, appetite; every temper, design, thought....Now God saw that all this, the whole thereof, was evil; — contrary to moral rectitude;contrary to the nature of God, which necessarily includes all good

Then he asked a question many using their own instincts might ask. 'But was there not good mingled with the evil? Was there not light intermixed with the darkness?'

He answers plainly:

  No; none at all: “God saw that the whole imagination of the heart of man was only evil.”

Then using a similar reasonable protest he asks, “Was there no intermission of this evil? Were there no lucid intervals, wherein something good might be found in the heart of man?'

Wesley again says no, insisting human nature is totally depraved always:

  For God, who “saw the whole imagination of the thoughts of his heart to be only evil,” saw likewise, that it was always the same, that it “was only evil continually;” every year, every day, every hour, every moment. He never deviated into good.

Finally he goes on to show that this is the description of man in every generation.  Wesley followed the early Protestant reformers such as Luther and Calvin in asserting human nature in all generations is only fully evil continually, i.,e 'the total depravity of man.'


Was the cave of Abraham in Shechem or Hebron? Genesis 23:17–20 says:

  So Ephron’s field in Machpelah near Mamre—both the field and the cave in it, and all the trees within the borders of the field—was deeded to Abraham as his property in the presence of all the Hittites who had come to the gate of the city. Afterward Abraham buried his wife Sarah in the cave in the field of Machpelah near Mamre (which is at Hebron) in the land of Canaan. So the field and the cave in it were deeded to Abraham by the Hittites as a burial site. (NIV)

Acts 7:15–16 says:

  Then Jacob went down to Egypt, where he and our ancestors died.
  Their bodies were brought back to Shechem and placed in the tomb that
  Abraham had bought from the sons of Hamor at Shechem for a certain sum
  of money. (NIV)

You may say that Jacob was simply buried in a different burial site. However, Genesis 50:12–14 clearly states otherwise:

  So Jacob’s sons did as their father commanded. They carried his
  body to the land of Canaan and buried it in the cave in the field of
  Machpelah near Mamre. Abraham had bought this cave and field from
  Ephron the Hittite to use as a burial place. After Joseph buried
  his father, he returned to Egypt, along with his brothers and everyone
  who had gone with him to bury his father. (NCV)

It seems that both the location and the seller is off between the books. How can these passages be reconciled?

The account in Genesis seems pretty clear that the cave of Abraham is in Hebron. Modern commentators seem to agree that Stephen was "telescoping" multiple Genesis accounts of patriarchal burials into one shorter narrative. I. Howard Marshall's commentary says, for example:

  The relation of the story of the burial to the Old Testament
  traditions is complicated. According to Acts they were all buried at
  Shechem in the tomb that Abraham had bought from the sons of Hamor. (1) According to Genesis 49: 29-32; 50:13 Jacob was buried in the cave
  of Machpelah near Hebron which Abraham had bought from Ephron the
  Hittite (Gn. 23). (2) Joseph was buried at Shechem (Jos. 24:32) in
  land which Jacob had bought from the sons of Hamor (Gn. 33:18-20). (3)
  Josephus states that Jacob's other sons (and, by implication, Jacob
  himself) were buried at Hebron (Jos., Ant. 2:199), and this
  tradition is also found in Jubilees and the Testaments of the
  Twelve Patriarchs. (4) There was a local tradition at Shechem that
  the twelve sons of Jacob were buried there. It thus appears that
  Stephen differs from the Old Testament accound in that he locates the
  tomb which Abraham bought at Shechem, not Hebron, and in that he adds
  the detail about the brothers of Joseph being buried there also.
  [F.F.] Bruce (Book, p. 149 n.39) suggests that, just as Stephen has
  telescoped the two calls of Abraham at Ur and Haran in verse 2 and the
  two divine messages in verse 7, so here he has telescoped the two
  accounts of purchases of land in Canaan. It seems probable that
  Stephen has followed a tradition, according to which not only Joseph
  (he, rather than Jacob, is perhaps meant be he died, himself in
  verse 15b) but also his brothers were buried at Shechem, and that he
  has attributed the purchase of the grave there to Abraham by including
  an allusion to the story in Genesis 23. The interest in Shechem and
  the emphasis upon it is remarkable in a speech addressed to Jews in
  Jerusalem, but they certainly could not contest the fact of Joseph's
  burial in the hated Samaritan territory. There is nothing sacrosanct
  about Judea as a place of burial; is there perhaps also a subtle
  preparation of Luke's readers for the story of the evangelism of
  Samaria (8:5-25)?

Does that make Luke a bad historian? If he was accurately reflecting Stephen's words, it makes him a good historian. Does it make Stephen a sloppy speaker? Not necessarily. This article by an apologist (Timothy W. Dunkin) defends Stephen from that charge. He claims that such telescoping was a perfectly acceptable practice for the time:

  What we see in this passage is simply that either Stephen in his
  sermon, or Luke in his recounting of the sermon, is telescoping the
  events of Abraham and Jacob together, as they are essentially similar
  subject matter, and are related chronologically and historically.
  Again, let us remember who Stephen's audience were - Hellenistic Jews
  who would to a certain degree have been Hellenised. As such, they
  would have been more receptive (and perhaps would subconsciously
  expect) a presentation in a Hellenistic style of rhetoric. It is
  doubtful that Stephen's audience would have even thought twice about
  Stephen's supposed error - they would have recognised the oratory
  device, and filled in the unspoken details themselves from their tacit
  knowledge of the stories and texts in question. This is made all the
  more likely because of the fact that most ancient cultures utilised
  high-context communication. Whereas we, in our low context society,
  feel the need to explicitly spell out exactly what we mean and leave
  little to the tacit knowledge of our audience, the ancients left much
  of the context of their words unspoken. The hearers or readers were
  expected to fill in the details from what they already knew, as
  Stephen would likely have expected his audience to do in this
  situation.

  Of course, this telescoping device was not solely limited to
  Hellenistic venues. Hints of it also seem to appear in the Hebrew
  scriptures. We see it somewhat in Joshua's sermon in Joshua 24, such
  as where Joshua appears to get his chronology backwards in vv. 11-13.
  The creation account in Genesis 1, where the events of the sixth day,
  especially the creation of Adam and Eve, are telescoped together and
  the much greater detail appearing in Genesis 2 is left out. Despite
  (though not necessarily contradictory to) all the emphasis that has
  been laid out about the Hellenism of Stephen's audience, we can see
  that Stephen's sermon delivery is firmly in the Hebrew tradition.
  Sermonry through the recounting of historical details and progression,
  especially as they apply to God's dealings with the nation of Israel,
  are a programmatic Hebrew method of exhortation. This methodology is
  used extensively by Moses (e.g. Deut. chs. 4, 29, 32), is the basis of
  Joshua's sermon in Joshua 24, forms the basis of Psalm 78, and is
  found elsewhere in the Hebrew scriptures. This same sort of Hebraism
  appears elsewhere in the New Testament, such as in Corinthians 10 and
  Hebrews 11.

  Thus, Stephen's sermon was fully in line with both the Hebraic and
  Hellenistic traditions of his audience, and his meaning would have
  been easily recognised by the members of his audience. While this
  telescoping appears to modern, low-context observers as wrong, it is
  incorrect to say that this is a "contradiction" or "error" given what
  has been said above. This only appears to be a contradiction because
  our modern minds are not conditioned to recognise and expect
  Hellenistic modes of speech.


When did the one-way monologue sermon first become a normal feature of church assemblies? Of course Jesus preached a lot of monologue sermons, but I have noticed that Jesus did not usually preach sermons like nearly every church does today. He never seems to have, or at least rarely preached a sermon, or even a mini sermon, or parable without opportunity for discussion and questions afterwards.  Possibly the ‘sermon on the mount’ is an exception as it is almost the length of a short sermon by todays standards without anyone else responding.

Today most protestant churches have a one-way sermon where one person preaches a sermon then after the sermon the Lord's Supper, worship, announcements or some other activity follows without ever opening the floor for questions or limited challenges or discussion by the hearers. This simply can't be found in the gospels or in Acts.

It. seems clear to me that a more interactive method of preaching was adopted by Jesus which might be more similar to what we would today call teaching, interactive lecturing or a dialogue sermon.

I have read in the past that the synagogue at the time of Christ had a time of interactive discussion after a speaker finished. In the New Testament we find arguably a provision made for 'non clergy' members to take turns in standing up and speaking (1 Cor 14:29).  Furthermore as early churches were house churches I can't imagine any speaker could then imagine that they could get away with an impersonal oratory followed by absolutely no discussion, debate or questions afterward.  In Acts the gospel went out with much interaction. I also heard that martin Luther was famous for very gently and generously answering any question after a sermon.

So when did the monologue sermon become the norm?

Cultural differences seem to have a part in the answer. Street preaching was not abhorred by anyone back then and disciple teacher relationships were also more popular.  Even when Jesus visited the temple as a child an they marveled at his wisdom indicates a provision in the strictest of ceremonies for accessible human interaction that seems less possible in our current culture. My question actually calls for serious historical and objective analysis.

The way the question is phrased means we must look at two historical developments:

How preaching evolved in the early church, from Jesus through the pioneer stage of Acts to the early church fathers.
How preaching evolved in the protestant church, from Luther into what we have today.

Also, one must note the context of the preaching: Small group, large amount of people; evangelistic setting, instruction in the faith for believers; etc.

In the Gospels, especially Matthew and John, we do hear Jesus delivering what one might called uninterrupted sermons. Matthew have five distinct sermons. However, Jesus interacts with followers, opponents and average people throughout the day. There is not really a pattern of distinct worship services, with distinct starts and stops. It's hard to see a model for preaching in a Sunday service in the Gospels.

In Acts we have a number of distinct sermons as well, but they are mostly ad hoc, in an evangelistic setting. They are very carefully crafted to the audience though. When appealing to Jews or "God fearers", the apostles used scripture, when appealing to unlearned gentiles, Paul used natural analogies and when appealing to learned Greeks, Paul used quotations from their own traditions. Once again, it is hard to see the kind of preaching we assume today, when the preacher starts with a text (or a few texts) from the Bible and tries to use them for exhortation and instruction.

We can see some sermons in Acts ending in dialogue, one ending in a murderous frenzy by the hearers (Stephen's) and some ending in an exhortation to be baptized.

Another factor: Most of the epistles of the New Testaments are in fact sermons. They were supposed to be read aloud. (A side note: Gather a small group, shut your Bibles and have one member read Galatians from start to finish. It will take 16-17 minutes. Do not interrupt and ask what a single verse might mean, but follow the train of thought. The experience is highly instructive!)

Since Paul (or the other authors) naturally could not be present when the epistles were read, this is very much a one way event. But in some letters Paul is addressing specific questions he has heard or specific problems he has heard of, providing a sense of a dialogue by mail or messenger

The early post-apostolic churches seem to have begun formalizing the worship service quite early on. While retaining many parts of the synagogue service, new elements were added. The preacher would sit and the congregation would stand. Sermons seem to be mostly one way. Questions and dialogue would be handled in smaller settings, like in the catechumenate.

From that era to the time of Luther, there seems to be precious few examples of dialogue being used in the sermons on Sunday services. Preachers like Chrysostomos (early 5th century) are clearly not expecting questions from the congregation. However, in evangelistic settings, like when Bonifatius talked with the heads of Frisia, dialogue occurred. One can also assume this was the case with the friar monks, preaching in public, during the middle ages.

Luther himself seem to have given himself license to do a few things he did not expect other preachers to do. In fact, he strongly admonished most of them to use written sermons, since he had a low opinion about their ability to produce sermons of sufficient quality of their own. To this end he wrote quite a number of postillas.

Luther also seemed to have preached mostly ex tempore, having worked with the texts in earnest when he prepared his lectures at the university, and a bit later, when he translated them into German. Most surviving sermons were written down by his hearers. Once again, it is clear that he expects other preachers to use a script for their sermons.

Given Luther's low opinion about the state of preachers' abilities, it would be surprising if he would encourage dialogue type sermons, even though I've not read anything myself that clearly says that he did or did not. He, and almost every other notable reformer, did however provide catechisms, that are structured in a question and answer format. In some ways these can be seen as FAQs, but in some ways they also are saying that this is a question one should ask.

Within a generation after Luther's death, Lutheran orthodoxy happened, clearly stifling innovation and providing a strong impetus for one way communication, regardless of the setting. "Cuius regio, eius religio" and that meant subjects were expected to conform. Any possible remnant of dialogue (if there ever were such a thing outside of Wittenberg) would probably have died now.

Still, all of this is an attempt to answer the question when. It says very little about the question how we should be preaching today. If anything, I think the lessons from early church age seem to be pick the format that works best in your particular setting.


What is the origin of the Catholic apocrypha? In the Catholic tradition, several "apocryphal" books are used in addition to the same Old Testament canon used by Protestants.

What is the origin of these books and how do they differ from from the other books?
Do Catholics view them as infallible?
Are they considered to be on the same level with the rest of the Old Testament or do they have some second rate status such as some form of non-divine wisdom literature?

The books known as "apocryphal" to Protestants are defined by Catholics as "Deuterocanonical" (a second canon). They come from the Septuagint, a Greek translation (with these additional books) of the Hebrew Tanakh. Later, around the 4th century, the Old Testament was translated by St. Jerome into Latin as part of the Vulgate. Besides the Catholic Church, the Constantinople-based Eastern Orthodox Church also received Deuterocanonical books as canonical.
Catholic Church considers the Deuterocanonicals on the same level as other books in the OT and NT canon. It is not a separate list, as expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) article 120. The Deuterocanonicals are also "infallible", as expressed in CCC article 107; they are without error.
This topic has been debated from the beginning, even by St. Jerome himself as he made the Vulgate. He considered some of the books and texts not found in Hebrew to be apocryphal, as expressed in his prologue to the book of Kings, Esdras, Solomon, Jeremias and Judith. But later, throughout the Middle Ages, the Vulgate was accepted as the official translation by the Church (Western Catholic and Eastern Orthodox). After Luther's Germanic Bible in 1534, this issue became one of the points of difference between the "Old Churches" (Western Catholic and Eastern Orthodox) and "Protestant and Reformed Churches" (Luther and Calvin).


How young do children start to receive communion regularly in Eastern Catholic/Orthodox churches? I know that in the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic churches communion is given to infants at baptism along with chrismation. What about after that? Do they continue all throughout childhood, or is it just a one time thing until they are older?

In the Orthodox church, communion is seen as a thing to be obtained as often as possible (since it is seen as truly the body and blood of Christ), though not more than once per day. In monasteries there will often be Liturgies every day. In most churches, though, the liturgies will normally take place only once a week. This being said, every Orthodox christian, of any age, will partake of The Holy Mysteries (unless they have not confessed their sins to their spiritual father recently, and think that they are not worthy. Note: At monasteries, the rules for confession may be more strict: confession before every communion, confession within at most the past week, etc.).

So, in the Orthodox Church, most Believers will receive Holy Communion roughly once a week from the time they are baptized, until the day they die. Note: It is seen as a great blessing to receive communion on or right before the day you die.

As far as the Catholic church goes, things are relatively the same; do not receive Communion if you have not confessed any mortal sin you may have done recently, et cetera. They also share the belief in transubstantiation.
However, in the Roman Catholic Church, infant and children communion is much less common than in the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic churches. According to Wikipedia:

  Infant Communion (also Paedocommunion) refers to the practice of giving the Eucharist, often in the form of consecrated wine, to infants and children. This practice is standard in the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches; here, communion is given at the Divine Liturgy to all baptized and chrismated church members regardless of age. Infant communion is less common in most other Christian denominations, including the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church.

For more on the Catholic's view of who can receive communion, see here.


Who believe that innocent children will also go to Hell? But Jesus called the children to him and said, "Let the little
  children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God
  belongs to such as these. (Luke 18:16, NIV)

To those Christians who believe in Original Sin, what did Jesus mean by saying that the kingdom of God belongs to children?

Do they believe that innocent* children will also go to Hell?

(* Innocent in the sense that they have not started the first act of sin.)

Jesus' remarks were that those who would receive his teachings would be like little children. Also see the Beatitudes, which provides more detail about the simple childlike faith (my words) of those that would receive him (meek, pure in heart, peacemakers, etc.).

The Kingdom of God belongs to those who can accept Christ in the same way a little child simply believes an elder.

On the topic of original sin, Protestant teachings (although there are obviously exceptions) from approximately Martin Luther onward are along the lines that Christ's blood atones for children until the age at which they are capable of making a conscious decision to accept or reject His Grace. This is commonly referred to as the Age of Accountability. The doctrine of Age of Accountability is that there comes a point in your life when you must make a choice for which you will be judged (see Romans 14:12); the actual point in a child's life at which one becomes capable of decision making is not specified in scripture, and in my opinion would differ for each individual. Prior to this age, Christ's blood atones for "original sin" having paid the price "once for all" (Hebrews 10:10).

Romans 14:12 -
So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

Roman Catholic teachings, on the other hand, states that those who die without first being baptized remain under original sin, and therefore descend to hell (or Limbo, in some interpretations).

Council of Lyons II: “…The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, to be punished with different punishments…-- (Denzinger 464)

Council of Florence: “…Moreover, the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds.— (Denzinger 693)

Pope John XXII: “It (The Roman Church) teaches… that the souls… of those who die in mortal sin, or with only original sin descend immediately into hell; however, to be punished with different penalties and in different places.” (Denzinger 493(a).

"It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: "In my father's house there are many mansions"(JN14:2): that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is eternal life, let him be anathema. For when the lord says :"Unless a man be born of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God"(Jn3:5), what Catholic will doubt that he will be partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a co-heir of Christ? For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run into the left" (Denzinger 102 fn.2; 30th edition)

Note that current Roman Catholic church doctrine makes allowance for the possibility of cleansing from original sin for unbaptized children. Source.

In the documents of the magisterium in the Middle Ages, the mention of “different punishments” for those who die in actual mortal sin or with original sin only (“As for the souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, they go down immediately to hell, to be punished, however, with different punishments")[66] must be interpreted according to the common teaching of the time. Historically, these affirmations have certainly been applied to unbaptised infants, with the conclusion that these infants suffer punishment for original sin. It must be observed however that, in a general way, the focus of these Church pronouncements was not on the lack of salvation for unbaptised infants, but on the immediacy of the particular judgment after death and the assignment of souls to heaven or hell. These magisterial statements do not oblige us to think that these infants necessarily die with original sin, so that there would be no way of salvation for them.


Does the Church of England regard itself as responsible for the behaviour of the general populace? Today, the Church of England has released an apology for a statement they made.

In response to people now entering into civil partnerships, rather than traditional marriage, the C of E made a statement suggesting such partnerships should be 'abstinent friendships' or, in other words, platonic relationships. They are now 'back-tracking' on that previous statement.

My question is not about that issue, itself.

My question is about whether the Church of England regards itself as a regulatory authority over the entire populace.

Or are its directions only made to persons within the Body of Christ, that is to say, those who show repentance and faith and who are followers of Jesus Christ in doctrine and in conduct ?

The Church of England cannot and does not of itself regulate the behaviour of the general British population. Church laws apply only to clergy and to members of the church, and sanctions against ordinary church members are limited to church matters. In other words an ordinary member can be punished only by things like expulsion from the church. Even then such sanctions are used extremely rarely.

The Church of England has some small contributory part to play in British government, in that twenty-six of its bishops have the right to sit in the House of Lords (the upper chamber of the British parliament). It is very rare that their influence is decisive. There are other minor ways in which it plays a part - for example some schools are administered by the Church of England on behalf of local education authorities.

Along with most other Christian groups, the Church considers that there are moral standards that apply to all people, and it is the church's duty to uphold those moral standards both by example and teaching.


Will God give us the gift of vision, dream, and prophecy if we request Him? In Acts 2:1-4 the believers

were filled with the Holy Spirit and began speaking in other languages, as the Holy Spirit gave them this ability.

Then in Acts 2:14-21 Peter quoted Joel 2:28-32 to explain that they were not drunk:

¹⁶ No, what you see was predicted long ago by the prophet Joel:
¹⁷ ‘In the last days,’ God says,
‘I will pour out my Spirit upon all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy.
Your young men will see visions,
and your old men will dream dreams.
¹⁸ In those days I will pour out my Spirit
even on my servants—men and women alike—
and they will prophesy.

Someone I know who belongs to a church that is somewhat related to Pentecostalism (independent, no affiliation) makes a big deal about this, saying that all believers CAN have dreams and visions (if they ask God to "claim His promise" in vv 17-18), which they can then use to "see the spiritual realm" (her terms) which include:

discerning what the Holy Spirit wants them to do, just like how the Holy Spirit guided several individuals in Acts
seeing intrusions by demons that they can use to take appropriate action
etc.

Her church teaching "encourages" (more like an imperative) that all believers are to seek these gifts.  Otherwise:

their spiritual growth is stunted
they "remain in the flesh"
they are unable to grow to their full potential, or even worse,
the lack of "seeing the spiritual realm" will prevent them from seeing warning given by the Holy Spirit to their own peril.

The question: Is the teaching above standard Pentecostalism?
Ideally, I would like a denomination survey, but excepting Pentecostalism and possibly Catholicism, the answer from other denominations would most likely be in the negative.  Please comment if  I should ask this question to other denominations as well, as it might be interesting to see how different denominations provide the reason why the answer is a "no".

First a point of clarifications:
In the widest sense, pentecostalism is the belief that there is a second, post-regeneration experience called the baptism with the Holy Ghost usually through the laying on of hands, which is externally manifested often with speaking in tongues (but this is not a universal belief). Charismatic Christianity believes in the active working of the supernatural gifts of the Holy Ghost in the normal life of the church such as miracles, healings, dreams, visions, prophecy, and speaking and interpreting tongues.
Pentecostals would be Charismatic Christians, but Charismatic Christians might not be Pentecostals. Assemblies of God is an example of the former, and I think theologian Gordon Fee might be an example of the latter.
To answer your question, it is the standard teaching in the Charismatic Movement that God still speaks to individuals with prophetic gifts: prophecy, visions, words of knowledge and wisdom. Prophetic Gifts are not considered to be "foretelling the future" but rather "words from God for edification". There is an emphasis on the personal relationship with God through his presence and Spirit, which manifest in such experiences.
Usually Pentecostal and Charismatic churches are MUCH less credal than Reformed and Catholic denominations because it emphasises the personal relationship so much, which means there is a MUCH wider diversity of beliefs and applications of what is believed. In the more conservative charismatic churches, there is a strong emphasis on "testing every spirit" and therefore a "healthy" scepticism.
The Old Apostolic Church with roots in Catholicism was founded in the 19th century and is one of the oldest Pentecostal movements and (at least here in South Africa) make a very big deal about God speaking to individuals regularly through dreams and consulting the "priest" to help with interpretation.
So to answer your questions, it is hardly meaningful to say standard Pentecostal teaching, but what might be considered standard Pentecostal and Charismatic teaching is that God still speaks to individuals about personal matters through the prophetic gifts of the Holy Ghost: Dreams, visions, prophecies, interpreted tongues, and maybe some other; and "Spirit-filled" believers can and should experience it.
Can I ask for God to speak to me through these gifts?
It is also important to note that Pentecostals (and most Charismatics) teach that there is also a difference between charismatic gifts (the focus of 1 Cor 12&14) and Offices (Eph 4:11 & 1 Cor 12:28). They mostly believe all believers can operate in charismatic gifts, like prophecy, visions, tongues, even miracles and healings. But some are "set" in the church to fulfil a certain function in ministry:

And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. (1Co 12:28)

These offices would have a function and role in the church, usually, focussing on equipping all believers to operate in the Charismatic gifts and leading the church with their "primary gift" for the purpose of growing into the unity of faith (Eph 4:13)
With this in mind, Biblically (if you grant the continuation and distinction of Charismatic gifts operating and Certain Offices) we can say the following:

Gifts are distributed by the Holy Ghost to ANYONE according to His will (1 Cor 12:11)
All offices are appointments by Jesus for the Church to grow into the unity of Faith (Eph 4:10-13)
The gifts and offices' primary and best purpose is to edify the body not the individual (1 Cor 12:7; 14:1-4, Eph 4:12)
If it is from God it will and must be administered orderly (1 Cor 14:33)
Prophetic words must be subject to the Scriptures and prophetic Office (1 Cor 14:32)
Therefore Prophetic words must be judged/interpreted (1 Cor 14:29, 1 Thess 5:20-21)
The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.(Rev 19:10)
The Good gifts are given to those who "are hungry" and ask for it (Luke 11:13)

So to answer your question, it will appear that if you grant the continuation of Spiritual Gifts, anyone can and should absolutely ask for it, but its purpose, like anything we ask God for, is not to consume it on your own lusts (James 4:3), but rather on the edifying of the Body. As a member of that body personal ministry to you by the Holy Ghost will obviously benefit the body, but not if it only serves to promote your own self-interest like your career or relationships apart or instead of the Testimony of Jesus.
I think most will say that to desire an Office would also be a good thing (similar to 1 Tim 3:16) but that it is ordination by Jesus Christ not for all. Many believe that some of these offices closed with the close of the Bible Canon, especially the Office of Apostle but some would include the Prophetic Office also.
Most Charismatics would use 1 Cor 14:1 and 1 Thess 5:19-21 to encourage everyone to operate in spiritual gifts and Luke 11:13 to receive it by asking.

Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye
may prophesy. (1Co 14:1)

Quench not the Spirit. Despise not prophesyings. Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1Th 5:19-21)

If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him? (Luk 11:13)

But in practice, the emphasis on the personal relationship with God the Holy Ghost, means that it is often applied primarily personally to know God's will for your own life. The idea of "putting out a fleece" like Gideon (in my experience as a Pentecostal) is very common among Charismatics to test if something is from God, while submitting your prophetic word or dream for judgement is very uncommon.
That being said, regardless of the continuation of any gifts or offices, like the Lord Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost is God and can speak independently of any gift or office. In which case, there is no judging just obeying. This seems to be the Apostles' experience in Acts 8:29; Acts 10:19; Acts 13:2 and Acts 16:6-7. and certainly the Old Testament experience for the Prophets that spoke moved by the Holy Ghost - it was God speaking, not through a Gift or an Office, but rather in his own Devine right. Faithful Pentecostal expositors are unlikely to condone the use of these as examples of how the Gifts of the Holy Ghost or active offices administer the prophetic word of God today.


How many Catholics believe in Transubstantiation? Have there ever been any studies or surveys of reasonably significant size that indicate how many Catholics believe in transubstantiation or would at least claim that they do?

Pew research does some awesome polls on questions like this.

  About half of those polled (52%) say, incorrectly, that Catholicism
  teaches that the bread and wine used for Communion are symbols of the
  body and blood of Jesus. Just four-in-ten people correctly answer
  that, according to the Catholic Church, the bread and wine actually
  become the body and blood of Jesus. Even many Catholics are unaware of
  their church’s teaching on this topic; while 55% of Catholics get the
  question right, more than four-in-ten Catholics (41%) say the church
  teaches that the bread and wine are symbols of Christ’s body and
  blood, and 3% say they do not know what the church’s teaching is.
  Still, Catholics perform better on this question than does any other
  religious group.

-Pew Research Who Knows What About Religion

Also this site made a nice graphic.

In conclusion I think it's safe to say that about 40-50% of Catholics believe in the real presence.  I hope that helps!


Author's words in Proverbs 5:20 compared to his way of living? And why wilt thou, my son, be ravished with a strange woman, and embrace the bosom of a stranger? (Proverbs 5:20, KJV)

It is well-known that Solomon had many wives and concubines. It seems that the advice he is giving here contradicts to his own way of living. How is this seeming contradiction usually explained in Catholicism, Orthodoxy and main-stream Protestantism?

"And why wilt thou, my son, be ravished with a strange woman, and embrace the bosom of a stranger?" (Proverb 5:20)
It is well-known that Solomon had many wives and concubines. It seems that the advice he is giving here contradicts to his own way of living.

There are no contradictions here because many wives and concubines were not "strangers" for king Solomon, they were his.
In words (Proverbs 5:3-20) the Holy Spirit by the mouth of Solomon warns against communication with a harlot or unfaithful wife:

For the lips of an immoral woman drip honey,
And her mouth is smoother than oil;
But in the end she is bitter as wormwood,
Sharp as a two-edged sword.
Her feet go down to death,
Her steps lay hold of hell.
Lest you ponder her path of life--
Her ways are unstable;
You do not know them.
Therefore hear me now, my children,
And do not depart from the words of my mouth.
Remove your way far from her,
And do not go near the door of her house,
Lest you give your honor to others,
And your years to the cruel one;
Lest aliens be filled with your wealth,
And your labors go to the house of a foreigner;
And you mourn at last,
When your flesh and your body are consumed,
And say: «How I have hated instruction,
And my heart despised correction!
I have not obeyed the voice of my teachers,
Nor inclined my ear to those who instructed me!
I was on the verge of total ruin,
In the midst of the assembly and congregation.»
Drink water from your own cistern,
And running water from your own well.
Should your fountains be dispersed abroad,
Streams of water in the streets?
Let them be only your own,
And not for strangers with you.
Let your fountain be blessed,
And rejoice with the wife of your youth.
As a loving deer and a graceful doe,
Let her breasts satisfy you at all times;
And always be enraptured with her love.
For why should you, my son, be enraptured by an immoral woman,
And be embraced in the arms of a seductress?


Why is the ritual of baptism needed? Why is the ritual of baptism needed (by "ritual of baptism" here I mean the physical act of being immersed in or sprinkled with water)? Why just acts of prayer and oral confession not enough?

I am interested in an overview of how this matter is explained in Catholicism, Orthodoxy and mainstream Protestantism.

Catholic View
Baptism necessary for justification
Catholicism teaches that "without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof," (Council of Trent, Decree On Justification, Canon 4) one cannot be justified.
In Catholicism, the laver of regeneration has one and only one referent, namely, Christian baptism; as does equally "born again of water and the Holy Ghost.")
'Justified' here refers to cleansing from sin and thus the acquittal of all guilt (as far as God is concerned: 'What sin?'). First and foremost this refers to original sin (that we are by birth strangers to God, and not his sons or daughters by grace, and thus stand in need of salvation from Hell, where such can only go and are only fit), but also to actual sin (sins you actually do—you don't 'do' orginal sin or depravity).
For adults, this involves full and complete forgiveness of all their "past sins," (2 Peter 1:9) and not only this, but the remission of any and all attached temporal punishment (i.e. being forgiven but nonetheless being given punishment, like the loss of a house, car, or even a child, in the case of King David—some form of corrective chastizement which always follows even forgiven sins). The value of this sacrament cannot be overestimated. It is the bounty of the merits of Jesus Christ on display for the world to see and take hold of, freely, if they would but take hold.
When one is baptized, they are utterly blameless before God and ready to enter heaven. This pure "garment" (Rev. 3:4; Mt. 22:12; Rev. 19:18) can only afterwards be "defiled" by free choice to commit evil.
The same canon of the Council of Trent teaches that "they cannot enter the kingdom of God" without baptism. This is why it is necessary in Catholicism.
Sacramental baptism specifically
They key reason Catholics believe Christ instituted sacraments in general (and thus an outward sign baptism) is because of our nature as human beings. We need signs to know what has occurred (think of Jesus using clay and miracles to prove the doctrine of His divinity, for example, and that God had truly came, not only in word, but in deed, in flesh).
We as Catholics don't believe in inward feelings being sure markers or signs of anything, even if they accompany or even precede the signs, since these are too subjective and can be mistaken—something or someone else has to bear witness to it (Mt. 18:16). In this case, one can know they have the remission of all sins and are now a son or daughter of God when they undergo the "circumcision made without hands," (Col. 2) which according to the perennial Catholic faith leaves on the soul, as it were, an indelible 'mark.' Just as someone in the Old Covenant could know they were a child of God by that outward sign on the flesh.
This is pretty much the only reason the sacrament is visible/necessary. Water, even that used in baptism, doesn't have any power in it whatsoever. It is matter used in this context that God has promised to work by and in and through, and that's the only reason it is effective. No Catholic believes in 'magic' water. Similarly, no bread is the Body of Christ and has the power to heal by virtue of it being hypostatically united to the Almighty Word of God, only that which has been sacramentally been made the 'what it is' (what they call in philosophy 'substance' or 'essence') of Jesus Christ's glorified Body: His body, blood, soul and divinity (that in which the Father delights profoundly), which we receive and incorporate by Communion into our own souls, so that "As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father; so he that eateth me, he also shall live because of me" (John 6:57).
Catholics believe that Jesus made baptism necessary Himself:

Mark 16:16 (DRB) He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.

Protestant View
Justifying vs. a Sign
Despite Protestantism not being monolithic, they generally say baptism is merely a sign of your already being (or usually only just having become) a Christian, to put it most loosely. Some believe in an ambiguous idea of it being a 'seal' of your being Christian. But hardly any Protestants (except Lutherans and some others) believe the sacrament actually confers the grace of justification.
Justification in Protestantism
Justification for most Protestants, however, does not mean (as in Catholicism) actual taking away of sins (and an expectation of an intention specifically to avoid sins, to avoid tarnishing the pure status given you, to avoid Hell), but the acquittal of them for the sake of Christ (as though Christ was a coat you "put on"—cf. Gal. 3:27—so that God the Father can declare you as righteous as Christ Himself, not based on your works corresponding directly with that righteousness). Martin Luther famously described Protestant justification by the words "a righteousness external to/outside of us" (i.e. Christ's). Just, for those Protestants who accept baptismal justification (in Catholicism we consider regeneration and initial justification from sin Adam's legacy to occur only once and in baptism, and so refer to 'baptismal regeneration' usually instead—Protestants often distinguish between justification and regeneration to such an extent that some even having it that you are not justified, but are regenerated, as in Calvinism for example). This might seem like a distinction without a difference, but one actually makes people fit for heaven as they are (since they are changed), whereas the other means you are actually still the exact same internally, but are granted access, per Christ, externally, to heaven, for Christ's sake (since the righteousness is only "extra nos"—outside of us).
For the majority of Protestants, though, baptism is not necessary for salvation; and they differ greatly on whether it is necessary even as a sign or symbol (i.e. as some kind of 'proof' you are truly Christian; or truly devoted, etc.). For those who reject its necessity, this is usually due to the doctrine that anything done pertaining to salvation, if truly pertaining to salvation and more specifically the receiving or not receiving it, must of necessity be an attempt to earn that salvation (baptism being something performed/asked for).
Eastern Orthodox View
The Orthodox view is not distinguishable in any meaningful way from that of Catholicism.

[The Orthodox Church] teaches the necessity of baptism for salvation, baptismal regeneration (John iii. 5), infant baptism, and the salvation of baptized infants (Matt. xix. 12). The effect of baptism is the remission of hereditary and previous actual sin, and the gift of the Holy Spirit. It can not be repeated; sins committed after baptism must be forgiven by priestly absolution on repentance and confession.
Creeds of Christendom, with a History and Critical notes. Volume I. The History of Creeds.§ 17. The Synod of Jerusalem and the Confession of Dositheus, Section XVII, Article XVI (condensed summary by Schaff) [emphasis mine]

They do differ with Catholics on what precisely original sin is (specifically as regards guilt and its relation to fallenness), but this doesn't affect the necessity of baptism nonetheless.


What is the biblical basis for considering gender to be purely physical/biological? In my other question, I asked what the biblical basis was for considering gender to not be merely physical, but also present in a person's soul and/or spirit.  However, there are some who believe that gender is purely physical, so it seems necessary to ask that question as well.

So, what is the biblical basis/argument/rationale that supports the idea that gender is something that is only physical/biological and does not have any presence in a person's soul or spirit?

The only "evidence" I have seen for this is the time when the Pharisees are attempting to trap Jesus by asking who would be the husband in heaven of a woman widowed seven times. His answer is none; we will be like the angels in heaven.

Some people think that this automatically means that there will be no sex or procreation and also no gender.

A few issues:

Jesus only said there will be no marriage in the Kingdom of Heaven; nothing to do with sex or gender.
Assuming He included sex and procreation, too, in that statement, does not mean that we will be without gender, although gender would seem unnecessary.
Like the angels seems to me that we should examine angels and their lives for an answer on this issue. Frankly, there is very little on angels in the Bible, but quite a bit in the Apocrypha.

So, with that I would say only this, assuredly: The angels do not marry and neither will we after our resurrection into the Kingdom of heaven.

If there is more support for this viewpoint, I am unaware of it.


Who did God talk to in Scripture? I think I know at least 2: Abraham and Moses.

Are there any others? Were the Prophets just inspired or did any of them talk to God?

Adam and Eve (in Genesis)
Cain (in genesis)
Noah (in Genesis)
Abraham (in Genesis)
Satan (in Job)
Job, Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar, and possibly Elihu (in Job, from a whirlwind)
Moses (in Exodus, Numbers, possibly Deuteronomy)
Aaron and Miriam (in Numbers 12)
Samuel (in 1 Samuel)
Elijah (the still small voice of 1 Kings 19)
King Belshazzar and his banquet guests (Daniel 5, if you consider writing to be speech: the finger writing on the wall)
the crowd surrounding John the Baptist at Jesus' baptism
Paul on the road to Damascus (in Acts)
the Apostle John (in Revelation, technically a vision)

Some Theophanies are uncertain. Joshua met an angel with a sword which many believe to be the angel of the Lord, making it more than an angelic visitiation or a vision.

Many prophets begin their accounts saying that the Word of the Lord came to them. It is not spelled out in each case whether that was direct appearance, dream, vision, or strong inner voice, so we cannot say.

Fun fact: Of all the recorded instances where God spoke directly to people, his longest address was to Job.


Does Hebrews 4:12 imply that unspoken good intentions might justify sins? This question is related to the post I have asked on the Literature.SE. Yet, this question might be treated as a separate post which does not require reading the other one.

Also, I should note that I have found my way into Christianity not so long ago, thus, my question might appear to be too primitive or even gibberish. In that case (especially the latter) I would like to apologise in advance.

Hebrew 4:12 reads:

  For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. - NKJV.

Sonya Marmeladova, obviously, engaged into sinful labour (prostitution). Her actions enslaved the hearts of her clients, even though she kept her soul pure and was sacrificing herself in order to feed her family.

Does Hebrew 4:12 justify her actions?

It is arguably the same writer (opinions differ on Paul writing Hebrews) who wrote :

  And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just. Romans 3:8 [KJV].

Romans 3:8 would be a resounding 'No' to your question, I believe.

To do evil that good may come out of it is worthy of 'damnation' (or 'condemnation' as some translate the word).

You suggest yourself that harm is done to certain persons - and that should never be, for any reason whatsoever.

That fact alone should stop someone doing whatever it is that they are doing.

As to the terribly difficult situations that people find themselves in (maybe through no fault of their own) or into which they are forced by coercion, brutality and sheer terror, well, who can utter condemnation in such cases ?

As I suggested in my comment : context is so important.


What translation does the Catholic Breviary of England use for Psalms? I've heard that in England the Roman Catholic Liturgy of the Hours uses a different translation for the readings from the U. S. (Specifically, the British use Jerusalem Bible in their liturgies (including Mass) and the U. S. uses the N. A. B.) I have not been able to confirm, however, whether they use the Grail Psalms for their Liturgy of the Hours. Do they use a different Psalter?

Yep, I just looked on amazon.co.uk to find the Divine Office published by Harper Collins for the use in the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia, etc...  Didn't have a preview or anything, but I did find this which says:

  Psalms are from the 1963 version of the Grail Psalter.


Where in the Bible does it say that sacrifice can only be done on the temple? This is probably more relevant for Judaism than Christianity. However, I am checking both.

Hezekiah instituted a religious reform that prohibit sacrifice on high places.

The justification is a letter in Leviticus saying that God will ordain the place where He will be worshiped.

The Samaritan think it's Mount Gerissim.

The Jews think it's Jerusalem.

Where in the Leviticus does it say where?

The history of the proper locations for offering sacrifices under the Old Testament is like this.

First before Moses sacrifices could be made anywhere.  Then once the tabernacle was built, Moses received the command of the Lord that sacrifices could only be brought to the  “entrance of the tent of meeting” per Lev 17:

  2 “Speak to Aaron and his sons and to all the people of Israel and say to them, This is the thing that the LORD has commanded. 3 If any one of the house of Israel kills an ox or a lamb or a goat in the camp, or kills it outside the camp, 4 and does not bring it to the entrance of the tent of meeting to offer it as a gift to the LORD in front of the tabernacle of the LORD, bloodguilt shall be imputed to that man. He has shed blood, and that man shall be cut off from among his people. (Lev 17:2-4)

The idea is that making your own sacrifice wherever you wanted after the Lord had provided the proper practice within the tabernacle was as bad a shedding blood of a human and therefore punished as severely. However this law did not seem practical when Israel was about to enter Canaan and be always on the move, therefore this restriction was was temporarily repealed by Moses with an eye to a more permanent re-establishment of it in the temple:

First the plan is to establish the rule in the temple:

  5 But you shall seek the place that the LORD your God will choose out of all your tribes to put his name and make his habitation there. There you shall go, 6 and there you shall bring your burnt offerings and your sacrifices, your tithes and the contribution that you present, your vow offerings, your freewill offerings, and the firstborn of your herd and of your flock. (Deut. 12:5-7, ESV)

Then as this is not yet practical, the concession is granted:

  15 “However, you may slaughter and eat meat within any of your towns, as much as you desire, according to the blessing of the LORD your God that he has given you. The unclean and the clean may eat of it, as of the gazelle and as of the deer.
  (Deut. 12:15, ESV).

Finally, as this interim period was come to an end and the Temple was about to be ready to replace the tabernacle, the original Lev 17 ordinance was again resumed. As about just this time, for example, we find the reason why people still sacrificed as ‘high places’:

  2 The people were sacrificing at the high places, however, because no house had yet been built for the name of the LORD. (1 Kings 3:2, ESV)

The ‘high places’ although referred to above as simply meaning a place where people sacrificed offering to God, quickly became an offensive term as not only would sacrificing animals there no longer be tolerated as the Temple after the Temple was built, but this was the place where idolatry was also practices to Baal and Ashera idols. Pagans worship their gods there and just like the golden-calf where Israel mixed up the religion of Jehovah with pagan idolatry, so these ‘high places’ became symbols of the same. When Jews worship there is was a corruption and mixture of God and idols. We see a king doing what ‘is wrong’ as leaving those ‘high places’ in tact.

  43 He walked in all the way of Asa his father. He did not turn aside from it, doing what was right in the sight of the LORD. Yet the high places were not taken away, and the people still sacrificed and made offerings on the high places. (1 Kings 22:43, ESV)

When a King did ‘what is right’ he removed the ‘high places’. In fact this became a litmus-test phrase to distinguish good kings from bad ones.

  19 And Josiah removed all the shrines also of the high places that were in the cities of Samaria, which kings of Israel had made, provoking the LORD to anger. He did to them according to all that he had done at Bethel. 20 And he sacrificed all the priests of the high places who were there, on the altars, and burned human bones on them. Then he returned to Jerusalem. (2 Kings Chapter 23:19-20, ESV)


What does the Bible teach about domestic discipline? Specifically when it comes to a parent disciplining their children or husband disciplining his wife - it seems there has been a lot of talk about both and I'm curious what different denominations and the Bible has to say on the topic.

Is corporal punishment/discipline ever OK?
Is corporal punishment/discipline from a parent to a child OK?
Is corporal punishment/discipline between a husband and his wife OK?

I have never heard of a husband disciplining their wife, I certainly don't do that. However parents have an obligation to discipline their children for it is written

  He who spares his rod hates his son, But he who loves him disciplines
  him promptly. (Proverbs 13:24)

May I add that I don't use a physical rod :)

  “Impatience in the parents excites impatience in the children. Passion
  manifested by the parents creates passion in the children and stirs up
  the evils of their nature. Some parents correct their children
  severely in a spirit of impatience, and often in passion. Such
  corrections produce no good result. In seeking to correct one evil,
  they create two. Continual censuring and whipping hardens children and
  weans them from their parents. Parents should first learn to control
  themselves, then they can more successfully control their children.
  Every time they lose self-control, and speak and act impatiently, they
  sin against God. They should first reason with their children, clearly
  point out their wrongs, show them their sin, and impress upon them
  that they have not only sinned against their parents, but against God.
  With your own heart subdued and full of pity and sorrow for your
  erring children, pray with them before correcting them. Then your
  correction will not cause your children to hate you. They will love
  you. They will see that you do not punish them because they have put
  you to inconvenience, or because you wish to vent your displeasure
  upon them; but from a sense of duty, for their good, that they may not
  be left to grow up in sin. (Testimonies For The Church Volume 1 p. 398, Ellen White)


Is there historical evidence for an atheist argument about the New Testament? My question is: are the arguments used against the historical legitimacy of the Gospels, particularly Luke and the timeline/events surrounding the birth of Christ relatively recent, or have they been around since the beginning? Are there any works around from the first couple of centuries AD that make any such claim?

I ask this because occasionally I will come across an argument against the legitimacy of the Bible from a historical perspective. Recently I came across a detailed article (sorry, I can't find it now, but there are ones similar in Richard Dawkins and other sites) which discussed how Luke's description of the census, traveling to Bethlehem, etc. defies historical evidence.

I got to thinking: Suppose Luke's (or Matthew's, Mark's, John's) account was just a story made up for the audience of the day as it is often portrayed today. If so, rebutting Christianity should have been a simple matter for the scholars of the time who had either lived through these historical events or had first or second-hand knowledge of them. After all, why wait 2000 years to bring up arguments which were even more valid back then? If the census timeline and other significant events were totally wrong, everyone back then should have known, even a hundred years later? Since Christianity had so many enemies early on, you would think Jewish or Greek scholars of the time would have had a field day ripping apart the Gospels and Epistles in order to make believers look particularly foolish.

If someone began to claim some yokel who died 40 years ago was divine and performed miracles at Woodstock in 1970, a whole lot of people would still be alive to debunk the year at least (1969), if not the yokel. 1500 years from now, nobody may know that exact year of Woodstock, but we certainly do now.

An argument I might make is the absence of such material is highly unlikely if the Gospels were historically inaccurate. It is difficult for me to believe any movement, particularly one as radical as Christianity, could have gotten off the ground like it did without a solid historical basis.

However, if there IS material making such claims from that period, it would at least lend an air of credibility to the argument against the Gospels.

Does anyone know of any? TIA

Consider the testimony of Scripture itself.  1Corinthians 15:3-19

  1 Corinthians 15:3–19 (NASB95) — 3 For I delivered to you as of first
  importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins
  according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was
  raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He
  appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 After that He appeared to
  more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until
  now, but some have fallen asleep; 7 then He appeared to James, then to
  all the apostles; 8 and last of all, as to one untimely born, He
  appeared to me also. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, and not fit
  to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10
  But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did
  not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I,
  but the grace of God with me. 11 Whether then it was I or they, so we
  preach and so you believed. 12 Now if Christ is preached, that He has
  been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no
  resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the
  dead, not even Christ has been raised; 14 and if Christ has not been
  raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. 15
  Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we
  testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if
  in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised,
  not even Christ has been raised; 17 and if Christ has not been raised,
  your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those
  also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If we have
  hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be
  pitied.

The testimony of Scripture to this age-old question is centered around the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  The entire Christian faith relies upon the reality and truthfulness of Jesus Christ, who is God, lived a sinless life (Heb 4:15; 1Peter 2:22; 2Corinthians 5:21; 1John 3:5), died and was buried, and rose on the third day according to the Scriptures (Hosea 6:2; Luke 24:46).

Why did Christianity "take off"?  That question has been answered many different ways throughout history.  Probably the most helpful and memorable is the one offered by C.S. Lewis who said:

  I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing
  that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great
  moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one
  thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of
  things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either
  be a lunatic—on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg—or
  else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either
  this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something
  worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill
  him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God,
  but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a
  great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not
  intend to. . . . Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a
  lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying
  or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is
  God. (Mere Christianity, 55-56)

His argument has been whittled down to Jesus as one of three possiblities: Liar, Lunatic, or Lord.  But the conclusion of so many eye-witnesses was that He was indeed Lord.  For example the Centurion soldier:

  Matthew 27:54 (NASB95) — 54 Now the centurion, and those who were with
  him keeping guard over Jesus, when they saw the earthquake and the
  things that were happening, became very frightened and said, “Truly
  this was the Son of God!”

So to answer your question, Christianity has been tested since the beginning.  The Jews tried to discredit Jesus, the Pharisees and Saduccees tried to trap him, Judas tried to kill Him, the Romans tried to judge Him, but Jesus had full control of His life as he would often say, "My time has not yet come" (John 7:6).  Ultimately it was the Father who crushed the Son (Isaiah 53:10).  Jesus gave up His life of His own accord because He was God (Matthew 27:50).

The arguments for atheism are fairly recent.  Even the wicked pagans and Jews believed in God.  At least they were not as foolish as the people of today who believe there is no God (Psalm 53:1).  The attacks on Christianity was to discredit Jesus, to expose Him as a fraud, to retain power over the region of Judea, to preserve the social structure of the Jews.  Yet the answer for all is the same.  Jesus Christ who lived, died, was raised on the third-day, seated on the right-hand of the Father remains the same answer yesterday, today, and forever.


In the Eastern Orthodox tradition, is it possible to laicize a bishop? In the Roman Catholic Church, priests are sometimes laicized, either at their own request or as a punishment. It's unclear to me who exactly in the Roman Catholic has the power to laicize a priest, but in practise this seems to be done exclusively through the Vatican. Although this is rarer, Catholic bishops have been laicized as well; indeed, Fernando Lugo, Bishop of San Pedro, was laicized voluntarily in order to run for President of Paraguay, serving in this office from 2008 to 2012. Again, it seems that a bishop can't be laicised without the approval of the Pope. In either case, it is believed that ordination makes a permanent indentation on the priest's or bishop's soul; the laicisation does not annul the ordination, rather it makes it illicit for the priest or bishop in question to administer the sacraments. But that's the Roman Catholic Church. What about the Eastern Orthodox Church, about which I know much less?
I've read that, in the case of an Eastern Orthodox priest but not a bishop, his diocesan bishop has the power to laicise him. Although Eastern Orthodoxy has its own convoluted structure of archbishops, metropolitans, patriarchs, etc, the difference with Roman Catholicisim is that all Eastern Orthodox bishops are equal, at least in principle. Thus there isn't really any higher (earthly) authority to which to refer the matter, and so the diocesan bishop has the final say. Morevover, the ordination of a priest is not understood to make a permanent indentation on his soul, and therefore laicization returns him to the lay state in the fullest sense. Have I got that right?
Now what about the case of an Eastern Orthodox bishop? My ignorance here touches on two things:

Who, if anyone, has the authority to laicize an Eastern Orthodox bishop?
What would such a laicization be understood to accomplish?

If all bishops are essentially equal, who has the authority to laicize one? I suppose several bishops might have such authority, but how many exactly are required, and why that many and no fewer? The only potential example I can think of is the Great Moscow Synod, where Patriarch Nikon was deposed by several other patriarchs. But it's not totally clear to me whether he was returned to the state of being a simple monk in the Roman Catholic sense - i.e. he was forbidden from carrying out the duties of a priest or bishop - or whether it was understood that his status as a bishop was completely annulled.

It appears that for autocephalous Orthodox Churches, their Holy Synod has the authority to laicize them.
Although the person in question was "demoted" to monk and not fully laicized, I believe I have found an illustrative and extremely recent example (Wikipedia, which I quote below [editing out the references]; news source). The person in question, Monk Seraphim (Storheim), was convicted of sexually assaulting a young boy.

Following his release from prison, members of the Holy Synod of Bishops of the Orthodox Church in America on October 19–23, 2015 canonically deposed the retired Archbishop Seraphim from the status and all sacred functions of the episcopacy, removed him from the ranks of the clergy, and returned him to the status of a lay monk.

The Holy Synod made this decision with much sorrow, but with the conviction that it was a necessary action both for the salvation of the now Monk Seraphim and for the preservation of the good order and stability of the flock of Christ. At the same time, we offer our prayers for the victims, their families and all those who have been affected by the events surrounding this case.

Edited to add: With respect to your second question, I found this article on Professor Contantine Scouteris at the University of Athens on Christian Priesthood and Ecclesial Unity: Some Theological and Canonical Considerations. I have edited out the references again, but the original website has them. It appears that there is some debate on the matter, but at least some thinkers (such as Scouteris, with canonical basis) reject the idea of an indelible mark.

[...]the priest does not possess in himself an indelible mark as if it were a magical seal which grant him a private efficacy to perform the Eucharist or any other liturgical action, apart from the ecclesial body. The priestly ministry is rather a charismatic gift to serve and edify the body of the Church. It is a permanent rank of service only in union and by the discerning authority of the Church.

The doctrine of the "indelible mark" attained at ordination to the priesthood seems to have originated in the Scholastic period of the Western Church. This same conception was at times borrowed by Eastern theologians thereafter. [...] It is interesting to mention here that the sixth Ecumenical Council in its 33rd canon condemns the practice of Armenian Christians who had embraced the Old Testament custom concerning the Levitic rank and did not accept for the priesthood anyone who was not of this so called "priestly lineage". The reasoning for the adoption of the Old Testament typology in both cases seems to be that an identification mark is a constitutive element of priesthood. In the later case it is conceived as an inherited trait, while in the former which concerns us here, it is viewed as irrevocably and individually attained at the ordination rite.

The logical conclusion of the "indelible mark" is that the ordained individual possesses forever this peculiar mark of priesthood which can never be removed by anyone nor can it be surrendered in any circumstance. [...] Thus the ordained person possess a self sufficient power which is higher than the Church itself And the Church is not able to take back the indelible mark from an individual even if he is defrocked and excommunicated.

Interpreting the 68th Apostolic Cannon which refers to the impossibility of repeating the sacrament of ordination, St. Nicodimos the Agiorite explains that ordination cannot be repeated because it is done according to the Type of the First and Great Priest who entered once and for all into the holy of holies and there granted eternal salvation. Yet, he unswervingly rejects the doctrine of the "indelible mark" of priesthood and attests that it is the "invention of scholastics." Nevertheless, according to St. Nicodimos, the doctrine is borrowed by Nicholas Bulgaris, Koresios and many other theologians of the past century and some still somehow adhere to it today.