Multiple wives and concubines | male and female "original" intent Matthew 19:1-6 New International Version (NIV)

  1 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and
  went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 2 Large
  crowds followed him, and he healed them there.

  3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful
  for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"

  4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator
  ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man
  will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the
  two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one
  flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

When Jesus said “Haven’t you read, that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female" I believe he was referring to Genesis 5:2.

  Genesis 5:2

  2 He (God) created them male and female and blessed them. And he named
  them “Mankind” when they were created.

In regards to the unity of one man and one woman, how did the Pharisees as well as others listening to Jesus (Matthew 19:2-3) interoperate what Jesus meant (Matthew 19:4-6) when they would have also known that Abraham and King David had multiple wives and/or concubines?

NOTE: I don't want this to be about how Christians view polygamy today but rather how did those listening think/feel/interperate (through 1st century "eyes") what Jesus was now saying compared to the "views/actions" of their forefathers. Prior to Jesus referencing Genesis 5 and clarifying that the unity of male and female was orignially intended for one man and one woman, did those practicing Judaism and those following Jesus recognize a difference in what was once practiced and what is now being said; or did everyone already know the original intent of male and female, specifically in terms of how Jesus stated it to be in Matthew 19?

I think the Pharisees understood quite well that their ancestors were not perfect. The fact that they did X does not make X right. The example of David that you bring up is a case in point: He was guilty of adultery and murder. The Bible is unusual in that it holds someone up as a hero at the same time that it freely recounts his character flaws -- sometimes big ones like this. I don't think the Pharisees supposed that murder was okay because David did it, or would have found this in any way confusing.

(Ever notice that most history books and biographies tend to present their heroes as 100% good? Their character flaws are often whitewashed: he was forced into it by circumstances; this was accepted practice at the time, etc. There are exceptions, of course, but I see this a lot. But the Bible goes to rather the opposite extreme, being quite emphatic about its heroes’ sins.)

That said, the Old Testament does seem to at least tolerate polygamy. There are some clues in the OT that indicate that God intended marriage to be monogamous. For example, Gen 2:24 "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." Note "wife", singular, not "a man shall be joined to his wives". Etc. But these are subtle enough that one could debate them, and I don't know of anything in the OT that clearly, explicitly mandates monogamy. There are plenty of places where a person's sin is called out, and I don't know of anyplace where polygamy is called out as a sin. I'm interested if anybody else here can point to such a verse.

As Flimzy notes, Jesus was condemning divorce, not polygamy. That doesn't mean polygamy is okay, of course, I'm sure there are lots of sins that the Bible does not record Jesus discussing. But that's not what he was talking about here.


How did "credibile est, quia ineptum est" become "credo quia absurdum"? The quote "Credo quia absurdum" (I believe, because it is absurd) is ascribed to Tertullian. But Tertullian never wrote this: what he wrote (De Carne Christi, V, 4) was "Prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est" (It is wholly believable, because it is incongruous). These two phrases, though somewhat close in meaning, are completely different in wording. So where did "Credo quia absurdum" really come from? Is it someone's deliberate paraphrase of Tertullian, or a misquotation, and if so whose? Who was the first to use it?

It looks like a paraphrase made by the Zen Buddhist D. T. Suzuki's book, "Introduction to Zen Buddhism". Although, D. T. did use a different phrase beforehand, and it's possible that the paraphrase came before this writing (which was in 1914). The line quoted by Suzuki comes one line after the original line in question in Tertullian's work, so they are quite closely related. As Suzuki suggests, this phrasing may make more logical sense. It also is shorter, and thus lends itself to brevity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credo_quia_absurdum
About the phrasing
I am not a Latin Scholar, but I had three courses of Latin in High School in addition to extra-curricular Latin interests and exploration. I can say that, for the original quote, the repetitive usage of "est" (He/She/It is) is likely annoying and/or feels rather choppy to those who speak and read Latin fluently. Often times, the verbs of the form "to be" in Latin are implied, either by other verbs or simply by the mutual understanding that they are there (which can make it more difficult for those of us who don't read Latin on a regular basis to understand). I am unsure, but this could be (in written Latin) due to the fact that ancient man needed to use his paper-like resources carefully, since they did not have paper sold for less than a cent per page back then. It was a much scarcer resource.


What is the biblical basis for allowing atheists to speak openly and freely in society? Theonomy is a view held by some Christians which argues that the Mosaic law should be applied in modern society. One of the things that some proponents of this view argue for is that atheists should be punished by governments for sharing their beliefs.  Many theologians have argued for and against this belief, but I'll quote one that is critical of this view, the Free Church of Scotland, discussing the views of theonomist Greg Bahnsen:

  [Bahnsen] believes the Confession to teach that the magistrate is to enforce the death penalty on those who are guilty of breaking "the first table of the law" – those who are judged to be atheists, blasphemers, heretics and schismatics (Theonomy, p.538,539). This is completely contrary to the Free Church's position which opposes persecution and favours toleration. [source]

The Free Church goes on to make a few biblical arguments in favor of its view of tolerance for atheists.  I'm not sure, however, that those arguments are representative of all proponents of this sort of tolerance. So that's my question:

What is the biblical basis for allowing atheists to speak openly and freely in society?

Of course, there is some historical precedence for theonomist views; Thomas Aikenhead was hanged in 1697 at the insistence of the Church of Scotland on account of his atheistic or at least unorthodox beliefs.  So I suspect that this question could be tackled from a historical perspective as well, since Christians since then have probably used the Bible to argue against such practices.

On basic human psychology
Censoring someone doesn't change their beliefs; it just prevents them from expressing those beliefs where they will be caught. However, censoring someone will absolutely harden their heart against you. As someone who grew up atheist, I can absolutely tell you that I would have spent my entire young adult life in prison, protesting against such discrimination, and I would not have converted.
A change of heart does not occur in the face of force, but with love. Further, a change in behavior does not mean that a change of heart has occurred, but a change of heart will always result in a change of behavior.
On finding lost sheep

John 21:15
When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?”
"Yes, Lord," he said, "you know that I love you."
Jesus said, "Feed my lambs."
Romans 10:14
How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?

If our goal is to convert as many people as possible to Christianity, one of the first steps has to be to find the non-believers. When I was in college, this was really easy: put up fliers for a Christian event, and you would be accosted. Give out free coffee on a cold day in the name of our Lord, and you would be accosted. My most productive conversations with non-believers occurred during interactions like this. But what if it was literally illegal to express their views to me? Those interactions would never have occurred, and there would be fewer Christians today.
What would Jesus do?
Usually, when trying to find out what Jesus would do in a particular situation, we have to get abstract about his character and nature. This is not the case now; we know exactly what Jesus would do:

Find the sinners.
Engage the sinners in dialog.
Engage in very public dialog with anyone and everyone, especially sinners.
Eat with the sinners.
Feed the sinners.
Heal the sinners.
Perform miracles for the sinners.
Save the sinners from being stoned to death.
Get accused of being a sinner by associating so much with them.
Die for their sins.
Forgive those who killed him as they were killing him.
Conquer death.

(If necessary, I can chase down all the verses for those, but I shouldn't think it necessary.)
Jesus was all about engaging in very public dialog with people who were spiritually lost. At no point in the Bible does he try to censor anyone.
Samaria

Acts 1:8
"...you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."
John 4:9
For Jews do not associate with Samaritans.
Alternate: For Jews do not use dishes Samaritans have used.

On first reading of Acts, it seems odd that Jesus specifically mentions they have to witness in Samaria. But, in John we learn that Jews were extremely prejudiced against the Samaritans, to the point where they refused to even share dishes. In the ancient world, when Jews made their pilgrimage to Jerusalem, they would travel miles and miles out of their way just to avoid Samaria. In Acts, Jesus is essentially anticipating an argument. "The Lord said to the ends of the earth, but he surely didn't mean also those dirty Samaritans." Yes, we must love even our enemies (Matthew 5:44). Censorship is about as unloving as one can get short of physical violence.
Witnesses, not enforcers
Acts 1:8 also tells us our role, which we can also see in the Great Commission:

Matthew 18:19-20
"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you."

We are to be witnesses, disciplers, baptizers, and teachers. We are not enforcers of God's law. We are not judges. And even if we were, the only instance of censorship I remember from the Bible is when God ordered Joshua and the Israelites to kill every man, woman, child, and domesticated animal in Canaan who wasn't an Israelite because their pagan beliefs would corrupt the Israelites, and I'm pretty sure everyone can agree that we are not called to genocide.
Paul in Athens

Selections from Acts 17:22-34
22 Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: "People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: to an unknown god. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you.
24 "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. 28 'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'
29 "Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill."
32 When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered, but others said, "We want to hear you again on this subject." 33 At that, Paul left the Council. 34 Some of the people became followers of Paul and believed.
-1 And then Paul and his followers destroyed all the pagan altars in the city.

Clearly, that last line is not in the Bible. Paul was: courteous regarding their beliefs ("I see that in every way you are very religious"); firm in his own convictions; and in a public debate with non-believers. After stating his position, some people sneered, and he let them. He converted those he could, taught them what he could, but recognized that it was not his responsibility to try and force anyone into a change of heart, or to censor them in any way.

Matthew 10:14
If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet.


If Joseph was Jesus's adoptive father then did Jesus really have David's blood? I'm new to this site, but I'm as well searching for answers of several questions I've been facing.

Last Monday, I had a question involving the relationship of Jesus and Joseph.
So far I know, Joseph has been a long-descendant of David. and I believe Jesus was also supposed to have David's blood, because that was the reason why Joseph became his 'mortal father'

But since Maria was pregnant without involving intercourse with Joseph, then Joseph would theoretically have adopted Jesus as his son, breaking the connection of David's blood.

So, to repeat my question again, Is it true that Jesus has the blood from Joseph and finally, also David?

These are two lineages in the Gospels.  One - which you have cited - in Matthew, which traces Jesus' ancestry through Joseph, and another in Luke which traces His ancestry through Mary.  Joseph's genealogy, however, also applies to Mary in that she, like he, was of the house and lineage of David (Luke 2:4).

John Chrysostom addresses your question directly in a 4th century homily on Matthew:

  “But whence is it manifest that He is of David?” one may say. For if
  He was not sprung of a man, but from a woman only, and the Virgin hath
  not her genealogy traced, how shall we know that He was of David’s
  race? Thus, there are two things inquired; both why His mother’s
  genealogy is not recited, and wherefore it can be that Joseph is
  mentioned by them, who hath no part in the birth: since the latter
  seems to be superfluous, and the former a defect.

  Of which then is it necessary to speak first? How the Virgin is of
  David. How then shall we know that she is of David? Hearken unto God,
  telling Gabriel to go unto “a virgin betrothed to a man (whose name
  was Joseph), of the house and lineage of David.” What now wouldest
  thou have plainer than this, when thou hast heard that the Virgin was
  of the house and lineage of David?

  Hence it is evident that Joseph also was of the same. Yes, for there
  was a law, which bade that it should not be lawful to take a wife from
  any other stock, but from the same tribe. And the patriarch Jacob also
  foretold that He should arise out of the tribe of Judah, saying on
  this wise: there shall not fail a ruler out of Judah, nor a governor
  out of his loins, until He come for whom it is appointed, and He is
  the expectation of the Gentiles.” [Genesis 49:10 LXX]

  Homily II on Matthew


How did Christians get from the biblical feast of Passover to Easter sunday? Can any one offer an educated answer of how the Christian Church moved from Passover on the 14th day of the first biblical month to the day we now call Easter?

(You can even pretend Passover and Easter are synonymous tittles!)

Making the question more clear:

The Bible clearly says,

Leviticus 23:5  In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the LORD'S passover.

This is as well more elaborated in Exodus 12.

Jesus and the Apostles all would have used this date, see Luke 22, Mark 14 and Mathew 26.
Jesus disciples would have kept the Passover  according to the Jewish luni-solar and Agricultural based calendation of the day,  which calls the first month Abib,

Deuteronomy 16: 1  Observe the month of Abib, and keep the passover unto the LORD thy God: for in the month of Abib the LORD thy God brought thee forth out of Egypt by night.

Today the celebration in West now called 'Easter' is not held according to the prior calendar law of the Lord but is kept on 'Easter Sunday'.

How do Catholics and Protestants do this with scriptural authority?

Make your answer clear from the Bible.  Show where in the Bible a prophet, Jesus or his disciples/apostles tell chrisians how to keep this feast we call Easter?

Or if you believe you do not need scriptural authority please tell why in the answer you give regarding the question:

How did Christians get from the biblical feast of Passover to Easter sunday?

(Please do not give any Ishtar speculations, this question does not concern paganism...thank you.)

Easter and Passover are two different celebrations. Passover celebrates the escape of the Israelites from Egypt and the sparing of them from the plague of killing the firstborn. Easter celebrates the much more significant resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. You will find these events described in all four of the Gospels in the New Testament, Matthew Mark Luke and John. The resurrection is foreshadowed by Passover and occurred at the same time of year.

Passover is a strictly Jewish celebration and there is no thought that non-Jews would celebrate it. Easter is a celebration for all people that believe in Jesus, whether Jewish or not. Passover celebrations waned as the church became more and more non-Jewish, and an annual Paschal celebration of the Resurrection was well established by the second century AD.

I hope that helps.


Does Paul ever actually quote Jesus anywhere? Is it true that Paul did not quote Jesus a single time in the entire New Testament (of which he wrote 50%)?

1 Corinthians 11: 23-26
  For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.


What are vows? Are they relevant even today? Psalms 76:11 (NIV) says

  Make vows to the LORD your God and fulfill them.

Many other passages in the old testament as well we hear about vows and fulfilling it.

In New testament we read in Acts 18:18 (NIV)

  Paul stayed on in Corinth for some time. Then he left the brothers and sisters and sailed for Syria, accompanied by Priscilla and Aquila. Before he sailed, he had his hair cut off at Cenchreae because of a vow he had taken.

Also we read in Mathew 5:33-35 (NIV) we see reference of vow:

  “Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King.

Questions:

What are vows?
Are they  relevant even today?
For what, we need to make a vow?
Why would have Paul vowed to cut his hair?
Why we do not hear about such vows these days in churches?

Well, I suggest you read A Defense of Rash Vows by G.K. Chesterton for more enlightement.

  Modern sages offer to the lover, with an ill-flavoured grin, the largest liberties and the fullest irresponsibility; but they do not respect him as the old Church respected him; they do not write his oath upon the heavens, as the record of his highest moment. They give him every liberty except the liberty to sell his liberty, which is the only one that he wants.

But here's the gist of it.

Married couples make a vow to each other, with Christ as their witness
Priests and others make vows to the Catholic Church or consecrate themselves to Mary (as I have).
Other vows can be of a more mundane purpose (I promise to eat my weight in kelp), but still important to keep if for no other reason than, 'to thine own self be true'

  The man who makes a vow makes an appointment with himself at some distant time or place. The danger of it is that himself should not keep the appointment. And in modern times this terror of one's self, of the weakness and mutability of one's self, has perilously increased, and is the real basis of the objection to vows of any kind. A modern man refrains from swearing to count the leaves on every third tree in Holland Walk, not because it is silly to do so (he does many sillier things), but because he has a profound conviction that before he had got to the three hundred and seventy-ninth leaf on the first tree he would be excessively tired of the subject and want to go home to tea. In other words, we fear that by that time he will be, in the common but hideously significant phrase, another man.

Making a vow gives an individual the liberty to constrain themselves.  Modernity rejects this notion because it rejects obedience (even to yourself) and it rejects truth (even being honest with yourself).  So, in the sense that no one will take your vow seriously, yes they're irrelevant today.   But to the Christian, who does not live in accord with the age, vows are very important and they can help us to be obedient to the Church and to Christ.

Good vows will keep our wills as closely aligned to God's as possible.


Things that are common exclusively for Protestants and Oriental Orthodoxy What things are common for absolutely all Protestants and Oriental Orthodoxy, yet cannot be found in the Eastern Orthodox Church (EOC) and Roman Catholic Church (RCC)?

(In my question, by "Protestants" I mean all those who don't belong to EOC, RCC or Oriental Christianity, don't mind praying to Jesus in their prayers besides praying to their Heavenly Father, and believe that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are One God. Therefore, those groups who may be called by others as "Protestants", but don't meet those requirements - for example, Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses - are not included in my question).

The Easy simple answer to the OP is NONE.  Because the original question used words like "absolutely all Protestants", it is very difficult, maybe even impossible to answer such a broad but also strict question.    Lets just take one issue, basic Nicene Theology etc.   Most Protestants formally or informally  accept basic Classical Theology as far as the Trinity, Jesus as true God and true man hypostatic union etc.    However in recent times there has been a rethinking of such basic creedal theology, and some small groups of Biblical Fundamentalists, and Postmodern Evangelicals can be rethinking things like Arianism and Modalism (Oneness) etc.     And this diversity of opinion and thought is even more true on moral issues which have been more divided on issues regarding sexuality and relationships etc.


When was the third heaven where God dwells created When was the third heaven where God dwells created?  Was it created during the creation week?

Just so we all know what you're talking about...

  2 Corinthians 12:2 ESV I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows.

Whether Paul was talking about a literal third heaven or a metaphorical vision, I am not sure. But if there is one, my guess is that it would be included with the heavens talked about in Genesis 1:1.

  Genesis 1:1 ESV In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

Though I wouldn't say that God dwells there as he created it

  Isaiah 66:1,2 ESV Thus says the Lord: “Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool; what is the house that you would build for me, and what is the place of my rest?
  All these things my hand has made, and so all these things came to be, declares the Lord. But this is the one to whom I will look: he who is humble and contrite in spirit and trembles at my word.


How close is the English word "father" compared to the original word used by Jesus in the Lord's Prayer? Jesus is said to have used the Aramaic word ABBA in the Lord's Prayer. The word was perhaps used by children to address their father and was similar to what toady's children address their father as Daddy. In a few languages besides English, I have seen that the word used is the one which has more formal and literary usage than the word Daddy which in many ways expresses the bond between the children and their earthly father.

I would like to know what exactly the word used to address the Heavenly Father in the Lord's Prayer in ancient English was. Are there any authentic studies available from the side of Catholic Church on the passage, from ancient times to the modern,  of the Lord's Prayer with specific reference to the way of addressing it uses ?

Although Jesus was likely to have spoken Aramaic or Hebrew, the Gospels were preserved in Greek using the word πατήρ/πάτερ, as was noted in the comments; this became the Latin pater. In England up to the Reformation, liturgically the Lord's Prayer was always in Latin.

However, Wikisource has Old English (10th–11th century) and Middle English (14th century) versions†:

  Fæder ūre, þū þe eart on heofonum;
  Sīe þīn nama gehālgod,

  Oure fadir that art in heuenes,
  halewid be thi name;

The word was cognate with the modern English Father. Whether Fæder or fadir were as formal as "Father" is today is not easily discovered, but it's likely that they were not; children routinely addressed their parents as "Mother" and "Father" until comparatively recently, and OED does not have Dad/Daddy recorded until the 16th century.

† The later version is from Tyndale's Bible. The earlier source is not identified.


How could Jesus be descended from the royal line of David if he was born of the Virgin Birth? The first chapter of  Matthew traces Jesus' lineage through his father Joseph back to King David through something like 18 generations. But as we know, Jesus was born through the agency of the Holy Spirit meaning that Joseph did not impregnate his mother, the Virgin Mary.

How would Jesus have a bloodline back to King David?  Was Mary a cousin (of some degree) to Joseph with similar bloodlines?  If not, what doctrine would cause Jesus to be considered descended from King David?  Or put another way, are there any sources that describe what bloodline Jesus actually had through Mary?

The Old Testament has two distinct methods of claiming kingship. One is by descent from David, and the other is by prophetic or divine appointment. Where did David himself get his kingship? It was by prophetic appointment, through Samuel.

One was applicable to the southern Kingdom of Judah, with its capital in Jerusalem, while the other was applicable to the northern Kingdom of Israel, with its capital in Samaria. The requirement for the throne of Judah was Davidic descendancy. No one was allowed to sit on David’s throne unless he was a member of the house of David. So when there was a conspiracy to do away with the house of David (Isaiah 7:2-6), God warned that any such conspiracy was doomed to failure (Isaiah 8:9-15).

Now, Matthew’s genealogy traces the line of Joseph, the step-father of Jesus. Joseph was a direct descendant of David through Solomon, but also through Jeconiah (see Matthew 1, verses 6-16). Now here, we have a big problem, because Jeremiah 22:24-30 says,

  “As I live,” says the Lord, “though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, were the signet on My right hand, yet I would pluck you off; and I will give you into the hand of those who seek your life, and into the hand of those whose face you fear—the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon and the hand of the Chaldeans. So I will cast you out, and your mother who bore you, into another country where you were not born; and there you shall die. But to the land to which they desire to return, there they shall not return. “Is this man Coniah a despised, broken idol—a vessel in which is no pleasure? Why are they cast out, he and his descendants, and cast into a land which they do not know? O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the Lord! Thus says the Lord: ‘Write this man down as childless, a man who shall not prosper in his days; for none of his descendants shall prosper, sitting on the throne of David, and ruling anymore in Judah.’ ”

This passage says that no descendant of Jeconiah would have the right to the throne of David. Until Jeremiah, the first requirement for messianic lineage was to be of the house of David. So not only must the Messiah come from the line of David, He must also be apart from Jeconiah. But, as we read in Matthew’s genealogy, Joseph is of the lineage of Jeconiah—meaning, none of his descendants could sit on David’s throne. So then, one must beg the question: how could Jesus be the Messiah, if the Messiah must come from the line of David, but also not be of the line of Jeconiah?

This is where the Virgin Birth comes into play. Remember, Jesus is not Joseph’s biological son, so the Jeconiah curse doesn’t apply to Him. He is, however, Mary’s biological son per the Virgin Birth. But this still doesn’t explain how Jesus is the descendant of David. To answer this, we must discuss Luke’s genealogy.

Unlike Matthew, Luke follows strict Jewish procedure and custom in that he omits no names and mentions no women. However, if by Jewish custom one could not mention the name of a woman, but wished to trace her line, how would one do so? He would use the name of her husband (possible Old Testament precedents for this practice are Ezra 2:61 and Nehemiah 7:63). That would raise the second question: if someone studied a genealogy, how would he know whether the genealogy was that of the husband or that of the wife since in either case the husband’s name would be used? The answer is not difficult; the problem lies with the English language.

In English, it is not good grammar to use a definite article (“the”) before a proper name (“the” Matthew, “the” Luke, and “the” Mary). However, it is quite permissible in Greek grammar. In the Greek text of Luke’s genealogy, every single name mentioned has the Greek definite article “the” with one exception: the name of Joseph (Luke 3:23). Someone reading the original would understand by the missing definite article from Joseph’s name that this was not really Joseph’s genealogy, but his wife Mary’s.

Furthermore, although many translations of Luke 3:23 read: “…being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Heli…” because of the missing Greek definite article before the name of Joseph, that same verse could be translated as follows: “Being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph the son of Heli…” In other words, the final parenthesis could be expanded so that the verse reads that although Jesus was “supposed” or assumed to be the descendant of Joseph, He was really the descendant of Heli. Heli was the father of Mary. Ultimately, Joseph was Heli’s “son-in-law.”

Next, remember King David had more than one son. One of them was Nathan. None of Nathan's descendants had any "Jeconiah-like" curses. Mary was a descendant of Nathan (Luke 3:23 and verse 31—remember, as explained above, although the English text says “the son of Joseph, the son of Heli…” since the original Greek says Heli is the father-in-law of Joseph, logically, Heli is the biological father of Mary). Now, Jesus is completely safe from the problem of the Jeconiah curse, all while being from the line of David, and of the Tribe of Judah.


Does the garden of Eden still exist? In Genesis 3:22 through 24  KJV man is ejected from the Garden of Eden and Cherubims are stationed on the East side of the garden to prevent man going back and eating from the tree of life.

22  And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
23  Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
24  So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

From the fact that the Cherubims were stationed on the East side it would necessarily portend that the rest of the World would be to the West otherwise they would have been stationed all around assuming that entry could be gained through other than the eastern gate.
My question then is assuming that the Garden of Eden was a physical place why isn't it known of today, and if it is not a physical place then there are whole new batch of questions in my mind.

The garden of Eden was a physical place. It was believed to be situated south of Lake Van in Turkey. Ancient Turkey.

We cannot know the exact location of Eden because of the flood. The flood could have changed the geography of the whole area. It almost certainly would change how the 4 rivers flowed. Those 4 rivers are really the only way of knowing the exact spot of Eden. You can speculate the exact spot, but nobody knows for sure.

Here is an article from Insight from the Scriptures Volume 1:

  "The traditional location for the garden of Eden has long been suggested to have been a mountainous area some 225 km (140 mi) SW of Mount Ararat and a few kilometers S of Lake Van, in the eastern part of modern Turkey. That Eden may have been surrounded by some natural barrier, such as mountains, could be suggested by the fact that cherubs are stated to have been stationed only at the E of the garden, from which point Adam and Eve made their exit."

  "With the sudden opening of the ‘springs of the watery deep’ and “the floodgates of the heavens,” untold billions of tons of water deluged the earth. (Ge 7:11) This may have caused tremendous changes in earth’s surface. The earth’s crust is relatively thin (estimated at between 30 km [20 mi] and 160 km [100 mi] thick), stretched over a rather plastic mass thousands of kilometers in diameter. Hence, under the added weight of the water, there was likely a great shifting in the crust. In time new mountains evidently were thrust upward, old mountains rose to new heights, shallow sea basins were deepened, and new shorelines were established, with the result that now about 70 percent of the surface is covered with water. This shifting in the earth’s crust may account for many geologic phenomena, such as the raising of old coastlines to new heights. It has been estimated by some that water pressures alone were equal to “2 tons per square inch,” sufficient to fossilize fauna and flora quickly.—See The Biblical Flood and the Ice Epoch, by D. Patten, 1966, p. 62."

So to answer the question, no it is very unlikely. If Eden had mountains everywhere, but east, then Eden was in a small valley of sorts. The genesis account says even the tallest mountains where covered. This means that the valley would have been underwater for quite a long time. It is speculated that the water took almost a year to subside. That is more than long enough to drown any plant life that was in Eden. The site of Eden may still exist, but because of the flood it would be vastly different than what it originally was.


Why does God command us to have children? Genesis 1:28

  Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)

  28 God blessed them and said to them, “Have many children. Fill the
  earth and take control of it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the
  birds in the air. Rule over every living thing that moves on the
  earth.”

There are so many Christian concepts that make me scratch my head as to why God wants us to have children. Things like the ruler of this world is Satan, Christians must suffer in this world, we are anxiously waiting for Jesus' return and the rapture, fighting our carnal nature of a fallen world....etc. Wouldn't it be better to leave unborn children wherever they may originate from?

So what is the reason God wants us to have children?

(Also, if you happen to known - does God NOT want non-Christians to have children?)

The verses you quote give one very obvious reason: to fill the earth, take control of it, and rule it.

This might be slightly more understandable by analogy to adopted children of a good king. The king desires his children to not just like him in title (accomplished simply by the adoption) but like him in character and action (rightly using authority develops right character and right character motivates a caring that demands that authority be exercised and exercised rightly).

(Part of this rule would seem to be to command the obedience of "lower creatures" with respect to their being fruitful. [God's command to the sea and sky creatures in Genesis 1:22 to "increase" is implicit to other creatures.] This would seem to imply that human reproduction which prevents such obedience by destroying habitats would be contrary to the command.)

One aspect of being made in the image of God is that human's are meant to be like images of a King scattered about the kingdom to declare the authority of the King. Images that more faithfully reflect the original more clearly make that declaration. (Declarations of autonomy--e.g., my labeling myself [as a statue] "King Paul"--would be perhaps the most outrageous violation of that purpose.)

Parenting is also one of the ways that God helps humans understand his character (being like a husband and like a father to his creation but also to understand the Father's love to his adopted children that he would give his begotten Son for them), develop a like character, and display his character (in miniature and like a statue or picture). Even the act of procreation itself mimics (as a child imitating the parent) God's act of creation. It also seems that parenting wears very abrasively against self-will and self-sufficiency and more strongly forces prioritization of the use of time and other resources.

Biological reproduction is also a reasonably effective form of evangelism, of growing the kingdom.

With respect to Satan as the prince of this world, the Christian is comforted that Jesus has overcome the world (John 16:33b--"In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.", NIV). To reject children out of fear of Satan would be to reject this comfort.

With respect to the waiting for the return, the Christian is called to be active and fruitful in this time. Burying one's talent to be guaranteed not to suffer loss seems to be viewed rather harshly in the Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14-30).

With respect to fighting our carnal nature, Biblical Christianity is not like that form of Gnosticism that taught that the spirit is good and the matter is evil. In fact, the Bible teaches that the Christ ascended into heaven with a physical body (which ate food presumably with fleshly pleasure). While sexuality is a major area of human corruption, it is part of the created order that God originally declared "good". By properly exercising sexuality, a couple declares God's redeeming power over this prominent area of fallenness. (For Roman Catholics, who reject the separation of the unitive and reproductive aspects of sexuality, the connection of reproduction with proper exercise of sexuality may be more explicit; but I suspect even most Protestants would not entirely separate sexuality from reproduction, at least recognizing that there is a creaturely desire to procreate that is linked with sexuality and that the full function of sexuality involves reproduction.)


Is repentance required for salvation? I know that through faith alone I am saved.  But is repentance a requirement for that salvation as a part of my faith?  Is repentance a single act, or should it be continuous?

Short Answer, YES; Long Answer, YES YES
First we need to define what repentance is.
The word in Greek is Metanoeo which means: To change ones mind. The word repent in Hebrew is Nacham which means to: to be sorry, be moved to pity, have compassion.

Repentance is a state of mind, of sorrow over your actions.

Now that we understand the word's definition we need to understand the context that the word is used in. Here in the old testament is one verse, of many, that defines repentance.

Ezekiel 18:30 NKJV
“Therefore, you Israelites, I will judge each of you according to your
own ways, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent! Turn away from all your
offenses; then sin will not be your downfall.

Repentance is to turn away from all of your offenses, to turn away from sin.

So you can see that repentance is a mindful state of abhorrence to the things that you have done. The bible says that we need to prove this mindful state by our actions. Have a look:

Acts 26:20 niv
First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all
Judea, and to the Gentiles also, I preached that they should repent
and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds.

Your turning away from sin is proven by what you do.

Repentance is: Having a changed mind that turns you from the things that you were once doing in order that you may do the opposite.
What does God say about Repentance?
We are commanded to repent of our sins.

Job 36:10 niv
He makes them [his children] listen to correction and commands them to repent of
their evil.
Acts 17:30 niv
In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all
people everywhere to repent.

What does Jesus say about Repentance?
Here we see Jesus talking about the final judgement, he's giving us insight into what He will say and do on that day.

Matthew 7:21-23 (NKJV)
21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom
of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many
will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in
Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your
name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart
from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

We know that sin is lawlessness. Christ is literally saying that if you practice sin He will have nothing to do with you, you did not know Him and He did not know you. In this next verse you see Jesus commanding us to repent, He does this constantly throughout his testimony on this earth.

Matthew 4:17 (NIV)
From that time on Jesus began to preach, "Repent, for the kingdom of
heaven is near."
Luke 3:3
He went into all the country around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the > forgiveness of sins.

It's interesting what Luke says here, a baptism of repentance FOR the forgiveness of sins. If we put this altogether with what else we have learned so far, we see that if we turn from our sins then God will be faithful and forgive us for those sins.
So if this is true, then the opposite should also be true. If we continue to sin then we will go to Hell? Let's see if what the Bible says.

Hebrews 10:26-27 (NIV)
26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the
knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a
fearful expectation of judgment and of  raging fire that will consume
the enemies of God.

Finally God says that He stands FIRM on this very statement. He will not change His mind.

2 Timothy 2:19 (NIV)
19 Nevertheless, God’s solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this
inscription: “The Lord knows those who are his,” and, “Everyone who
confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness.”

Assurance of salvation as it relates to repentance

1 John 1:6-76 NIV
If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness [evil], we
lie and do not live by the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light [love], as he
is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of
Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.

If you continue to sin then the truth [Holy spirit, God, Jesus] is not in you.

1 John 2:4-5 NIV
The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a
liar, and the truth is not in him. But if anyone obeys his word, God's
love is truly made complete in him.

If you say that you know God, but you continue to sin, not loving as you were commanded, then you are a liar and [Holy spirit, God, Jesus] is not in you.
Repentance is a struggle against the desires of your flesh

Revelation 2:19
I know your deeds, your love and faith, your service and perseverance,
and that you are now doing more than you did at first.

You will not be perfect right away, you will go through a lot of discipline and correction from God, so that you may produce more and more fruit throughout the days of your life. Persevere in your repentance.

Hebrews 10:36
You need to persevere so that when you have done the
will of God, you will receive what he has promised.


What is the significance of the message “every case must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses” in 2 Corinthians 13:1? In 2 Corinthians, Paul mentioned that it was the third time he was going to visit the people there, and he added that "As the scriptures say, the facts of every case must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses".

2 Corinthians 13:1-2 (NLT)
1 This is the third time I am coming to visit you (and as the Scriptures say, “The facts of every case must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses”). 2 I have already warned those who had been sinning when I was there on my second visit. Now I again warn them and all others, just as I did before, that next time I will not spare them.

I was trying to understand what Paul is trying to say when he mentioned “The facts of every case must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses” in 2 Corinthians 13:1.
What is the significance of the message “The facts of every case must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses” ?

Since Paul was coming to deal with a sinning church member, he is back referencing Jesus' command on dealing with sins in the church in Matthew 18:

  But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED.

Which is itself a reference to Deuteronomy 19:15:

  A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed.

Paul is reiterating that while he "knows" there is sin in the church, even as an Apostle of Jesus, he won't cast a man out on hearsay: it must be confirmed in the proper process.


According to the Catholic Church, how do you perform an examination of conscience? When preparing for the Sacrament of Reconciliation, we are instructed to perform an examination of conscience.  How exactly are we supposed to go about doing this?  I am looking for a thorough, sourced, pragmatic, and detailed answer focused on the spiritual actions of the penitent in sequential order.

There a guides for helping with examination of conscience, such as this short examination of conscience and this longer version. They often go through the 10 Commandments

Thou shalt not have other gods besides Me
Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain
Remember to keep holy the Lord’s day
Honor thy father and thy mother
Thou shalt not murder
Thou shalt not commit adultery
Thou shalt not steal
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods

and give particular examples of violations of each commandment. Reviewing the commandments of the Church:

To go to Mass and refrain from servile work on Sundays and holy days
To go to Confession at least once a year (traditionally done during Lent)
To receive the Eucharist at least once a year, during the Easter Season (known as the "Easter duty")
To observe the days of fasting and abstinence
To help to provide for the needs of the Church according to one's abilities and station in life
To obey the marriage laws of the Church

and the capital sins (i.e., sins from which others arise):

Pride
Greed
Lust
Anger
Gluttony
Envy
Sloth

can also help.

As the Council of Trent says:

  Tell your sins as they are in your mind, that is, as they appear to you, according to your own feeling about them.

See the appendix of The Secret of Confession: Including the Wonders of Confession for a short "How to Go to Confession."

Also, the Veni, Sancte Spiritus (Come, O Holy Ghost) prayer is commonly said at the beginning of the examination of conscience, to ask the Holy Ghost to enlighten you with the graces to discover your sins and make a good confession. You can hear it sung here.


How do YECs respond to the lack of non-Christian buy-in to their "creation science"? The history of science is full of cases where a new, sound scientific theory didn't catch on right away, and was ridiculed by the scientific community, sometimes for decades or centuries, before becoming accepted theory.

The theory of the Flat Earth, orbits of the planets, even the theory of relativity... all were met with scientific resistance initially.

So it seems conceivable that "creation science" is solid science that simply hasn't yet taken hold in the mind of the masses.

But if this is true, one would expect there to be at least some non-Christian scientists who hold that the "creation science" theories are valid.

How do "creation science" proponents explain the lack of non-Abrahamic (non-Christian, non-Jewish, non-Muslim) scientists who buy into these "creation science" theories?

Creationism is built on the assumption that there is a God, and the assumption that this God is the God described in the Bible.

If you don't believe either of these things are true, then you cannot logically believe creation science.

However, if you believe that both these things are true, then creation science becomes a logical possibility (although not the only possibility).

Atheists do not believe there is a God. Therefore they cannot logically believe in creationism.

Hindus do not believe in the God of the Bible. Therefore they cannot logically believe in creationism. (They may formulate their own version of creationism, but it will not be the same as Christian creationism.)

Christians believe there is a God, and that this God is the God of the Bible. In the same way that secular scientists use the framework of naturalism (i.e. the idea that all things have been created by currently observable processes) to structure and inform their hypotheses, creation scientists use the framework of the Bible to structure and inform their hypotheses. In both cases, the hypotheses can be tested by observing available evidence.

In theory, it should be possible to perform creation science in a rigorous manner. However, for every rigorous creation scientist, there are probably 10 000 mis-informed bloggers spreading their own unsubstantiated theories. In addition, some popular creationists have used fairly weak arguments. This has led to the popular belief that all creationists are stupid or wrong.

I am personally a creationist, but I try to approach it in a logical fashion. I am very wary of popular creationists, and try to determine whether their arguments are logical before I accept them.

Your questions was "How do "creation science" proponents explain the lack of non-Abrahamic (non-Christian, non-Jewish, non-Muslim) scientists who buy into these "creation science" theories?"

In answer to this, I believe that most people do not realise that creationism can be logical. In addition, some current creation theories appear to be inconsistent with the evidence. For instance, there is no creationist consensus on the problem of distant starlight. Back in the 80s, it was popular to suggest that "God made the light so it looked like it came from billion year old stars." However, modern creationists have realised that this suggestion is problematic, because if this were true, it would mean there were millions of stars which we can see which never existed!! Most non-Christians would see this as instant proof that creation theory is wrong. I am happy to wait and see if they can come up with better theories, because creationism makes the Bible more internally consistent.

Note: I don't believe you have to be a creationist in order to be a Christian.


How is "Veneration" similar or  different from "Adoration"? Most Catholics teach about honoring the saints, and mostly about "venerating" the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Though in my country (I'm from the Philippines), the line between honoring saints / Mary and the way we should honor the Lord is very thin, to most extreme cases, like some documentary I watched in TV, wherein one bedridden young woman prays to Mary  to heal her from her sickness (got no link sorry).

What are the similarities both acts share? How must they differ (aside from the recipient of the act (God for Adoration, Saint / Mary for veneration))?

OFF-TOPIC: My original question was: Why do Catholics "venerate" Mary and why do they give somewhat "more emphasis" on "venerating her" over directly praying to Jesus?

My original question might not suit here, though if you were compelled to answer me, thanks a bunch!

So, there are many different forms of prayer, the three involved here are intercessory prayer and prayers of blessing and prayers of praise (which is more of paying honor to the saints and God).

Then there are three forms of paying homage to God and His Saints in heaven.

Veneration is the honor given to the saintсѕ аdoration is the honor given to God alone.

In Greek there's latria (worship/adoration due to God alone), dulia (veneration given to the saints) and hyperdulia (veneration given particularly to Our Lady).

The difference is, you really can't say that Our Lady did such and such for you, but traditionally Catholics understood what you were saying when you said such a thing.  We understood her to be the Mediatrix of All Graces without a dogma.  Bl. John Paul II took his motto, 'totus tuus Sum Maria', which is to say,  "I'm all yours Mary".

The idea is that you can't really praise her enough, and all praise of her makes Our Lord happy, just like anything you say nice about my mom would make me happy!

You go overboard when you start calling her a Goddess, start having baptizing in her name, start really believing that it is her, not God who is working miracles.  But cults like that die out and are suppressed by the Church eventually.

So, in short, you can't say enough good things about Mary, you can't praise her enough and everything done for her is done for Jesus.

It's not essential to salvation, but 'to Jesus through Mary' is not a bad path for any Catholic.


Should a Church call out False Prophets who claim to speak with God's word? This question isn't about a specific situation but was brought on when I read about a few "prophecies" in the US claiming that Trump would win the 2020 election - a prophecy we now know to be false. They claim that God is telling them these things - there are many people that follow these speakers and are led astray by them.
Is there any responsibility on others within a Church (of any denomination) to denounce these people using the Lord's name to further their own goals?
i.e. if a Catholic Priest were to make such claims and so publicly should the Pope step in to separate this view from that of the Catholic faith to minimise the damage done to that congregation?

Yes, there is a responsibility for the Church (Body of Christ), to call out and denounce these false prophets. Deuteronomy 18:22 says, "When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them. - Ephesians 5:11

Pastors are the undershepherds of God's people. They have an onus to warn the sheep about the wolves.


How do theistic evolutionists view the Fall of Man? I haven't really decided what to think about the creation of the world. I'm very familiar with the concept of evolution, scientifically, and if I didn't believe in God I'd certainly believe in evolution.

However I'm not sure about the theological aspects of evolution. I consider the Fall of Man to be very important in Christianity. If man didn't fall, the "sinful" behavior would have actually been built into us by God (or God's mechanism). It would be difficult to explain how we're responsible for our actions, then. At least that's the way it feels to me.

Now, I'd like to know a few things from a theistic evolutionism point of view. If there are many different views, please tell all that fit with the assumption of evolution.

Was the Fall of Man a historical event?
Is the description of the Fall in Genesis 3 literal?
(*) How come we are accountable for our deeds?
(*) Where did original sin come from? (or does it not fit with theistic evolution)

(*) If you think the Fall wasn't historical

EDIT: question number 4 was added afterwards.

My view is 1) in a way, 2) no, 3) read on!

Consider two snapshots in time.

No humans around yet, just plants, animals and so forth. Lacking free will, they have no
moral responsibility, and the concept of "sin" makes no sense.
Humans exist. We have free will, moral responsibility, and conflicting tendencies: we are born to trouble (as sure as sparks fly upward, Job 5:7), but we are also loved by God and are drawn to him, since we are formed in his image.

The creationist viewpoint is that between 1 and 2 came the events of Genesis 1:26 through 3:24, as literally described. Evolutionarily, what took place is that humans evolved from our animal ancestors, gaining self-awareness and the ability to make moral choices. Unfortunately for us, that means that we can choose poorly. I read the story of Eden as a narrative exposition of this basic problem of the human condition.

So for your question 1, I think of the Fall as historical in that between step 1 and step 2, we fell; but not strictly as described in the Genesis story.

Our tendency to be tempted (Genesis 3:1), the resulting disobedience to God's will (3:3) and the desire to take his place (3:6) have resulted in our shame (3:7), alienation from God (3:10, "I was afraid"), from his creation (3:17-19), and from one another (3:12, Adam blames Eve). We had to wait for the promised seed, Christ, to defeat sin (3:15). By following him, we can regain the eternal paradise that had been denied (3:22-24).

These facts do not depend on there being a specific couple, Adam and Eve. Now, it's possible to counter this by pointing to passages like 1 Corinthians 15:21-22, which in the NIV reads

  For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

How can we view Christ as the new Adam, if there was never an old Adam? Actually, the literal interpretation has a problem in that Genesis 3 doesn't pin all the blame on Adam: Eve was tempted first, and they both ate the fruit. So I think that Paul has to be speaking figuratively in any case, using Adam as the stand-in for all of humanity. In the same way, there is Romans 5:12-21, saying that after the first sin of the first man, we are all sinners, but now we can all be redeemed through Christ. This redemption doesn't come about through physical descent, so I don't see a reason to say that we sin only because we are descended from a sinner. To me, it makes more sense to believe that Paul was speaking in a midrashic way about Adam, and that sinfulness is inherent to our (present) human nature, than to impose a literalist view on the text.

But whether or not the Genesis account is taken literally, from step 2 onwards, we are in the same spiritual and moral position. As Don Marquis put it in archy hears from mars,

  [earth] is in charge of a
  two legged animal called
  man who is genuinely
  puzzled as to whether
  his grandfather was a god
  or a monkey
  i should think said mars
  that what he is himself
  would make more difference
  than what his grandfather was
  not to this animal i replied
  he is the great alibi ike of
  the cosmos when he raises hell
  just because he feels like
  raising hell
  he wants somebody to blame it on


Why isn't the Eucharist of protestant churches considered valid by non-protestants? The Catholicism and Orthodox churches do not recognize the Eucharist of protestant churches. Why not?

As far as both Catholics and Orthodox are concerned, you need a validly ordained priest to confect the Eucharist.(see e.g. CCC, ¶1411) As far as they are concerned, none of the churches that originate from the Reformation period have what is required for a valid priesthood (i.e. bishops in unbroken tactile succession from the Apostles(see CCC, ¶1576)), so the Eucharist cannot be validly celebrated by these churches.

This may look uncharitable on the surface. In reality, the Catholics and Orthodox could not accept the validity of Protestant Eucharists without significantly altering their own doctrine.

On another related point, it's worth noting that Catholics and Orthodox do not even properly consider the Protestant churches "Churches" in the proper sense: they are referred to technically as "ecclesial communities" precisely because they have not preserved the sacramental priesthood and therefore the Eucharist:

  According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called “Churches” in the proper sense. Responses to some questions regarding certain aspects of the doctrine of the Church)


Are supporters of gay rights considered apostates within the LDS Church? The official stance of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints on homosexuality is:

  The experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many
  people. The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even
  though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do
  choose how to respond to them. With love and understanding, the Church
  reaches out to all God’s children, including our gay and lesbian
  brothers and sisters.

The LDS church is in support of basic civil rights being extended to those who self identify as homosexuals. These rights include equal access to housing, medical care, employment and the like. They are not however in favour of homosexuals joining in marriage or gay cohabitation. This reflects their stance of, "People may not choose who they're attracted to, but they do choose how to act on those attractions."

Recently, because of the supreme court ruling which made gay marriage legal in the USA, in addition to the other countries in which gay marriage was previously legal, the LDS church found it necessary to update their definition of Apostasy to include same-sex cohabitation. Prior to the legalization of same-sex marriages, it was not necessary to be so specific, but in order to address the secular position that homosexual unions should be held in the same regard as traditional unions, the necessity has arisen.

Amongst other questions, in order to receive a temple recommend, an individual must honestly be able to answer in the negative to the following question:

  Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual
  whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted
  by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Supporters of those gay rights which directly affect the definition of the institution of the family, specifically, those who support the institution of marriage between homosexuals, the cohabitation of homosexuals, or the adoption or raising of children by homosexual couples, are literally in support of practices that are contrary to the teachings of the church. They are literally in support of apostate teachings and practices.

Does this updated policy mean that all supporters within the church who believe that gay individuals have the right to live in gay relationships are guilty of apostasy?

I think the clearest thing I've seen said on this was a statement by Elder Christofferson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (statement starts close to minute 9) in a press conference in January, 2015:

We have members, individual members in the Church with a variety of different opinions and beliefs and positions on these issues and other issues, reflect back on the Equal Rights Amendment years ago, this isn’t the first issue, in our view it doesn’t become a problem unless someone is out attacking the church and its leaders, if that’s a deliberate and persistent effort, trying to get others to follow them, to draw others away, trying to pull people out of the church, or away from its teachings and doctrines. That’s very different for us, than someone who feels one way or another on a political stance or a particular action to support a group, Affirmation or any others that you named, these are things that there are fine lines here and there.

This is consistent with one of the other actions specified as apostasy in the handbook, even before the recent changes (see the unhighlighted portions of the handbook at the bottom of this article):

As used here, apostasy refers to members who:

Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.

So the takeaway from this would be that, unless you are persistently and publicly voicing your opposition to a teaching of the church, you are not necessarily considered to be in apostasy.
One final note, in relation to your quotation of the temple interview questions: Another contributor stated, in response to a different question about supporting polygamy and standing within the church, that "temple worthiness is on the far opposite end of the spectrum from excommunication: one who may not enter the temple may not be near disciplinary action." Although about excommunication, and not apostasy, I think the same idea applies here.


Why didn't God decide where the temple should be built during the exodus? I thought God is omniscient. So how come He doesn't know the place he will be worshiped during the exodus?

Notice the Bible says the place God will choose, not the place God will reveal.

  there will be a site that God will choose as the place dedicated to
  His name. It is there that you will have to bring all that I am
  prescribing to you as your burnt offerings, eaten sacrifices,
  [special] tithes, hand-delivered elevated gifts, and the choice
  general pledges that you may pledge to God.

Later, the Jews believe that the place is Jerusalem and the Samaritans, never being told where the place should be, just picked their own place.

Was God still undecided where the place of the temple would be, during the Exodus?

He didn't know what he would choose?

God did not reveal everything at once to the Prophets in the past. Revelation from God is a progressive revelation. Lets see some examples-

The Law was a progressive addition: God gave few laws to Noah after the flood (Genesis 9). God then gave circumcision law to Abraham (Genesis 17). At last, the complete law was given in a written form to Moses.
Messiah was not clearly revealed in OT: For the Christians, the New Testament is the truth for interpreting the Old Testament. The NT is the final revelation of who the Messiah is and gives us a clear picture of the Messiah, not a vague and shadowy picture like the OT.  The name of the Messiah as "Jesus" was not clearly predicted in the OT. If the name of Messiah was clearly written in OT, I believe there is higher probability for the Jews to believe that Jesus is the Messiah. The OT did not clearly mention that Messiah will be crucified, though the NT says the prophecy is hidden in Psalms 22 and others.

Applying the same concept to the Temple, we can infer that God did not reveal the chosen site for the Temple at once to Moses.

How the Temple site was chosen in Jerusalem: In 1 Chronicles 21, David aroused the anger of the LORD by counting the fighting men in Israel. The Lord sent Gad, David's prophet to inform the punishment from God. God sent a plague on Israel and sent an angel to destroy Jerusalem.

  Then the angel of the Lord ordered Gad to tell David to go up and
  build an altar to the Lord on the threshing floor of Araunah the
  Jebusite. So David went up in obedience to the word that Gad had
  spoken in the name of the Lord. While Araunah was threshing wheat, he
  turned and saw the angel; his four sons who were with him hid
  themselves. Then David approached, and when Araunah looked and saw
  him, he left the threshing floor and bowed down before David with his
  face to the ground. David said to him, “Let me have the site of your
  threshing floor so I can build an altar to the Lord, that the plague
  on the people may be stopped. Sell it to me at the full price.” (1
  Chronicles 21:18-22, NIV)

David then decided to built the Temple there at the threshing site of Araunah the
Jebusite.

  Then David said, “The house of the Lord God is to be here, and also
  the altar of burnt offering for Israel.” (1 Chronicles 22:1, NIV)

The Bible doesn't clearly mention why David chose that place for the Temple site. There was probably some divine understanding given to David that God has chosen that site for the Temple or David was divinely inspired because he was a man of God. We can see how God approved the alter built there by sending a fire.

  So David paid Araunah six hundred shekels of gold for the site.
  David built an altar to the Lord there and sacrificed burnt offerings
  and fellowship offerings. He called on the Lord, and the Lord answered
  him with fire from heaven on the altar of burnt offering. (1 Chronicles 21:25-26, NIV)

And later, when Solomon built the Temple there, God approved it.

  The Lord said to him: “I have heard the prayer and plea you have made
  before me; I have consecrated this temple, which you have built, by
  putting my Name there forever. My eyes and my heart will always be
  there. (1 Kings 9:3, NIV)


What was Saint Thomas Aquinas's girding by the two angels? Diego Velázquez's Temptation of St. Thomas shows him being girded by angels with a belt of purity:

What is the event behind this painting?

St. Thomas Aquinas's mother, a countess, tried to dissuade him from entering the Dominican Order because she hoped St. Thomas would become a prominent political figure. His brothers locked him up in a tower for a whole year and tempted him with a prostitute, whom he struck and chased out with a fiery brand. Two angels then girded him as a sign that God will always protect his purity.

Here's how Fr. Alban Butler recounts the story, from his The Lives of the Saints, "St. Thomas Aquinas":

  …the saint, not listening to flesh and blood in the call of heaven, demanded with earnestness to be admitted into the Order, and accordingly received the habit in the convent of Naples, in 1243, being then seventeen years old. The Countess Theodora his mother, being informed of it, set out for Naples to disengage him, if possible, from that state of life. Her son, on the first news of her journey, begged his superiors to remove him, as they did first to the convent of St. Sabina in Rome, and soon after to Paris, out of the reach of his relations. Two of his brothers, Landulph and Reynolds, commanders in the emperor’s army in Tuscany, by her directions so well guarded all the roads that he fell into their hands, near Acqua-pendente. They endeavoured to pull off his habit, but he resisted them so violently that they conducted him in it to the seat of his parents, called Rocca-Secca. The mother overjoyed at their success, made no doubt of overcoming her son’s resolution. She endeavoured to persuade him that to embrace such an Order, against his parents’ advice, could not be the call of heaven; adding all manner of reasons, fond caresses, entreaties, and tears. Nature made her eloquent and pathetic. He appeared sensible of her affliction, but his constancy was not to be shaken. His answers were modest and respectful, but firm in showing his resolution to be the call of God, and ought consequently to take place of all other views whatsoever, even of his service any other way. At last, offended at his unexpected resistance, she expressed her displeasure in very choleric words, and ordered him to be more closely confined and guarded, and that no one should see him but his two sisters. The reiterated solicitations of the young ladies were a long and violent assault. They omitted nothing that flesh and blood could inspire on such an occasion, and represented to him the danger of causing the death of his mother by grief. He on the contrary spoke to them in so moving a manner, on the contempt of the world, and the love of virtue, that they both yielded to the force of his reasons, for his quitting the world, and by his persuasion, devoted themselves to a sincere practice of piety.

  This solitude furnished him with the most happy opportunity for holy contemplation and assiduous prayer. Some time after, his sisters conveyed to him some books, viz., a bible, Aristotle’s Logics, and the works of the Master of the Sentences. During this interval his two brothers, Landulph and Reynold, returning home from the army, found their mother in the greatest affliction, and the young novice triumphant in his resolution. They would needs undertake to overcome him, and began their assault by shutting him up in a tower of the castle. They tore in pieces his habit on his back, and after bitter reproaches and dreadful threats they left him, hoping his confinement, and the mortifications every one strove to give him, would shake his resolution. This not succeeding, the devil suggested to these two young officers a new artifice for diverting him from pursuing his vocation. They secretly introduced one of the most beautiful and most insinuating young strumpets of the country into his chamber, promising her a considerable reward in case she could draw him into sin. She employed all the arms of Satan to succeed in so detestable a design. The saint, alarmed and affrighted at the danger, profoundly humbled himself, and cried out to God most earnestly for his protection; then snatching up a firebrand struck her with it, and drove her out of his chamber. After this victory, not moved with pride, but blushing with confusion for having been so basely assaulted, he fell on his knees and thanked God for his merciful preservation, consecrated to him anew his chastity, and redoubled his prayers, and the earnest cry of his heart with sighs and tears, to obtain the grace of being always faithful to his promises. Then falling into a slumber, as the most ancient historians of his life relate, he was visited by two angels, who seemed to gird him round the waist with a cord so tight that it awoke him, and made him cry out. His guards ran in, but he kept his secret to himself. It was only a little before his death that he disclosed this incident to F. Reynold, his confessor, adding that he had received this favour about thirty years before, from which time he had never been annoyed with temptations of the flesh; yet he constantly used the utmost caution and watchfulness against that enemy, and he would otherwise have deserved to forfeit that grace. …

The prostitute is shown in the background of Velázquez's painting. Bernardo Daddi's The Temptation of St. Thomas Aquinas shows her more prominently, and she lacks a halo:

cf. also the Angelic Warfare Confraternity


What is the ultimate goal of a human according to Bible? Bible contains several aspects. The best among them for humans is the guidance for conduct. It also instructs a way to live with honesty.
I'm confused about the ultimate goal of living a life according to the Bible. Is it reaching heaven or reaching God or unifying with god?  I'm interested to know whether the Bible explicitly says anyone among the three (I mentioned)  as ultimate.
Else if the Bible explicitly mentions any other one as the ultimate goal, please mention it.

One of the most famous answers to this question comes in the Westminster Shorter Catechism, question 1:

Q1. What is the chief end of man?
A. Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him for ever.

If you look there, they highlight 1 Corinthians 10:31, Romans 11:36, and Psalm 73:25-28.
I believe this is a typical answer to the question from a Reformed perspective.


Are LDS required to take their hats off when they pray? Is it part of the LDS religion to remove your hat during prayer? Or is that just part of western culture as a sign of respect? Are LDS required to remove their hats when they pray? Or can they pray with hats on?

Just to be sure, I have checked with every resource I am aware of, and there have been no formal declarations even associating the removal of a hat with prayer in LDS doctrine or theology.
From my personal experience, I do not believe this practice is limited to the Church o Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  As a youth in the Scouting organization in the US South, it was common for the MC or the one saying the prayer to preface prayers with saying, "A Scout is Reverent."  At that cue, everyone would remove their cap and bow their head.
In the same vein, I know of no teaching regarding arms folded (a typical LDS custom), "prayer hands," or simply clasped hands within the Latter-day Saint faith.  The intent of any method is simply to focus on the divine through prayer.
Latter-day Saints may pray with or without hats on, the greater concern is that whatever those praying do, they do it in reverence.
To quote Elder Bruce R. McConkie:

Prayers of the saints are expected to conform to a prescribed standard of divine excellence; they should fit into the approved pattern of proper prayer. They are to be addressed to the Father; should always be made in the name of Jesus Christ; must be reverential and worshipful in nature, which requirement includes use of the language of prayer (the pronouns thee and thine, for instance, never you and your); and above all they must be offered in sincerity of heart, with real intent and purpose, and must come from the lips of those who have broken hearts and contrite spirits; and finally, they should be closed with the word Amen. As a token of reverence and respect, when occasion permits, they should be made from a kneeling position.
Mormon Doctrine

(As an aside, the word "hat" is not to be found anywhere within Mormon Doctrine and only twice in Gospel Doctrine: Sermons and Writing of President Joseph F. Smith.)


Consulting of fortune tellers, palmists and astrologers Are there verses in the Bible, especially the New Testament, forbidding believers from consulting fortune tellers, palmist and astrologers?

Deuteronomy 18:10: “There shall not be found among you . . . anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens.”

Compared to God’s truth, divination is false, deceitful, and worthless. See Acts 16, as well.

Divination is a sin. Any form of it. Stay clear. Wisdom only comes from God.


What does the Bible say about Capital Punishment? Some Christians are for and some are against capital punishment. However what does the Bible have to say about it?

There are a host of references to capital punishment in the Bible - the first of which is in Genesis shortly after the Flood in Genesis 9:6:

  Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man.

Christ did not condemn the Roman soldiers for executing the thieves who were crucified with Him.

Paul does not deny the government the right to execute him if he has done something worthy of death in Acts 25:11a:

  "If, then, I am a wrongdoer and have committed anything worthy of death, I do not refuse to die"

Excluding specific commands regarding what was worthy of death to the nation of Israel under God's special covenant, it would seem that the Bible takes a neutral-to-positive view of the death penalty: the Noahic covenant was made with only 8 people on the planet - the forebears of all of modern humanity. As with Adamic covenants, since the it was made to the federal representative(s) of humanity, it still applies today - especially in light of the end of the covenant (Genesis 9:12ff):

  God said, "This is the sign of the covenant which I am making between Me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all successive generations"


How do I keep a small-group discussion focused? I am part of a high school small-group discussion at church.  When neither the adult normally leading it nor his substitute could make it, one of the students started leading.  The discussion quickly became distracted; one student was constantly doing something on his phone, and even the leader was on the phone with someone.  He later let me take over, but the discussion was now so off-topic that I couldn’t get it back on topic.  I did not have the attention of the entire group at any one time.  What should I do the next time that happens?

Just a few tips...
Never tell someone something when you can have them discover the answer themselves by asking a question.
To lead a group it helps to have a ton of questions written down.  Start with a few easy questions to get the ball rolling and then ask more challenging questions.
When some one answers a question, as another person what they think about that person's answer or "Does anyone disagree with that answer"?  This usually gets the conversation going.

Motivation = Value x expectancy

Why is the topic you are discussing important?


What is Wesley's concept of Entire Sanctification? John Wesley believed and taught the doctrine of Entire Sanctification, the idea that it is possible for a believer to achieve perfection in this life, based on Bible verses like:

  Those who have been born of God do not sin, because God's seed abides in them; they cannot sin, because they have been born of God. — 1 John 3:9

and Jesus' command:

  Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. — Matthew 5:48

Can someone explain what Christian Perfection or Entire Sanctification means?

Unfortunately, I can't say it any better than an article I found.

Source

  Wesley believed that Christ's death on the cross made it possible not
  only for sinners to be saved by grace, but, indeed, for them to be
  saved to the uttermost. Entire sanctification was restoration to the
  image of God, being made perfect in love toward God and neighbor.

(emphasis added)

It goes on to say:

  Entire sanctification was not a goal to be achieved, but a gift to be
  received. Like justification, sanctification is the gracious gift of
  God, received by faith.

Wesley claimed that this was not a new doctrine but merely a revealing of an old doctrine.


What is the Biblical basis for man being created perfect, or for man not being created perfect? I often hear that man was created perfect.

Yet Genesis 3:7 says that "they knew that they were naked." Additionally, Genesis 2:25 says they were "naked yet not ashamed."

Also, Genesis 2:18 says that the man was "alone," and God said that this was "not good."

Finally, there were times in Genesis 3 when God was not present and the man was separated from him as God had to appear in the garden.

I don't understand how one can conclude that man was created perfect when he was "naked," "alone," and separated from God at times. It seems as though man was initially created incomplete at best.

What is the Biblical basis for man being created perfect, or for man not being created perfect?

Thanks for your scripture-based thoughts on this.

On Nakedness and Shame

In Gen. 2:25, it states "and the two of them were naked" (וַיִּֽהְיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם עֲרוּמִּים), but it does not say that Adam and Eve knew they were naked (cp. Gen. 3:11). The statement that they were naked is merely an objective fact.

Because they did not know they were naked, "they were not ashamed" (וְלֹא יִתְבֹּשָׁשׁוּ) (ibid). Yet, in Gen. 3:7, once "they knew that they were naked" (וַיֵּדְעוּ כִּי עֵירֻמִּם הֵם), after partaking of the forbidden fruit (Gen. 3:6), which causes their eyes to be opened (Gen. 3:7a), then they were ashamed and afraid (Gen. 3:10). Consequently, they made themselves girdles or aprons from fig leaves to cover their nakedness (Gen. 3:7b).

On Man being Alone

In Gen. 1:31, the ultimate verse of the first chapter in which humanity is created (cp. Gen. 1:26-27), both male and female of the species, "God saw everything that He made, and behold, it was very good."

Ergo, humanity created as both male and female was "very good," but when humanity existed as only male (i.e., as Adam by himself), it was "not good that he be alone" (cp. Gen. 2:18). Hence, God created Eve to be a helper for him, and this union of male and female, husband and wife, was then "very good."

Gen. 2 contains an expansion of Gen. 1, including an elaboration of the creation of humanity.

To note, while man being alone was not good, this does not mean that man himself was not good. Adam, the first man, was the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27), and if God is good, then man must have also been good (this pertains to man before his fall). The Lord Jesus Christ came to restore man to that original image of perfection and goodness.


What can be said when applying ashes during Ash Wednesday Mass? For the first time in my life the minister in the town where I go to Mass while I'm at work said something besides "Remember your are dust and to dust you shall return" when administering ashes.  He said "Repent and believe in the Gospel" which is a good message, but makes me question 33 years of Ash Wednesdays, were we just being told 70's (because it conjures up Kansas' song "Dust in the Wind" in my mind at least) or what is the appropriate Ash Wednesday "thing to say"

The website liturgies.net appears to have a full copy of the Roman Missal, including the propers of the Mass for Ash Wednesday. This states:

  [The priest] sprinkles the ashes with holy water, without saying anything.

  Then the Priest places ashes on the head of all those present who come to him, and says to each one:

  Paenitemini, et credite Evangelion.
  Repent, and believe in the Gospel.

  Or:

  Memento, homo, quia pulvis es, et in pulverem reverteris.
  Remember that you are dust, and to dust you shall return.

I am attempting to find where in the Missal the statement originates.


If loves/desires 'point' to something beyond our imagination...what of enjoyment for fictional villians? In The Great Divorce, The Weight of Glory and Surprised By Joy, C. S. Lewis explained the concept sehnsucht, this mysterious desire for something we-know-not-what, something beyond this world. As it pointed us towards heaven, he reasoned, it must be of God. He felt it rarely but sometimes before a great landscape or reading a book.

How can we work out what enjoyable pleasures might either be remade in Heaven or have an even more pleasurable version there(To follow Plato's idea of the Forms)? I adore the cybermen in Doctor Who: can they be considered a foretaste if we experience a feeling of sehnsucht via them? Do we ever know for sure what echoes eternity and what doesn't? Certainly it's hard to imagine the fulfilment of desires for fictional villains (though I would love this) alongside cherubs and angels! But what a shame if the only people who's loves are completed are the ones who enjoyed scenic walks, flowers etc. I would really like strong evidence or reason to back up what I believe to be true, here. Thanks.

I'll take your question as, "Are there any Christian doctrines reinforced by the typical use of villains in literature and film?".  Here are a few:

1) Demonstration of natural law that people who do bad things can end up with bad consequences.

2) Demonstration that "bad guys" can undergo repentance. Examples: Darth Vader, Gru from Despicable Me, Megamind, Sharon from Battlestar Galactica, Edmund in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, Eustace in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader.

3) A demonstration that getting what we want, in terms of earthly goods, may have horrible consequences and leave us spiritually unfulfilled.  Consider the victory song Dr. Horrible sings, "Everything you Ever" in Dr. Horrble's Sing-A-Long Blog

4) A demonstration that our heroes too can be fallen. In many examples in literature, there are cases where the bad guy has more of a moral conscience than the good guys, or where a good guy who uses "bad guy" tactics hurts everyone.  Examples: Admiral Cain from Battlestar Galactica, Johnny Snow wanting to fight Dr. Horrible in park where kids play in Dr. Horrble's Sing-A-Long Blog.


What does it mean for the soul to be "immediately" created by God? It is a Catholic dogma (De Fide) that

human souls are immediately created by God.

In this answer, the issue arose about what exactly "immediately" means. I'm not sure a satisfactory answer was given, so I think a post dedicated to it might be helpful.
The Catechism, in point 366 states:

The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not "produced" by the parents ...

The quote below, from an article by Father John A. Hardon, S.J (taken from the referred answer) might be useful, as it might indicate what "immediately" is not supposed to mean:

The Vatican Council defined against the pantheists that, “If anyone says that finite things, both corporeal and spiritual, or at least spiritual, emanated from the divine substance...Let him be anathemas DB 1801. Thus it is defined that however the soul originates, it is not by way of emanation from the deity.
Benedict XII in 1341 condemned the errors of certain Orientals, on the occasion of prospects for reuniting the schismatic Armenians with Rome. "A certain teacher,” wrote the pope, "again introduced the teaching that the human soul of a son is propagated from the soul of his father, as his body is from the body of his father. He taught also that angels are propagated one from another. He gave as his reason for this that, since a rational existing human soul, and an angel existing in an intellectual nature are a kind of spiritual light, they propagate other spiritual lights from themselves" DB 533. The Armenian who held this doctrine was named Mechitriz, which means “paraclete." By condemning Mechitriz, Benedict XI condemned generationism, even of a spiritual kind, since the erroneous teaching referred to both human souls and the angels.

Still, it is not clear what exactly immediately is supposed to mean. Has this term been defined elsewhere, perhaps? Is there a definitive teaching on this?

"Immediately means that God directly creates soul without any mediators, for example parents."

  God creates human bodies through the reproductive powers of human
  parents. But each soul is a direct creation and gift of God (see
  Catechism, No. 366). Source


Source for this alleged quote from Martin Luther? The following quote is often attributed to Martin Luther:

  "When I look at myself, I don't see how I can be saved. When I look at Christ, I don't see how I can be lost."

However, after an exhaustive Google Books search, I haven't been able to find an original source for this quote (such as a sermon Luther preached or a book that he wrote).

Did Luther really author the quote and if so, when and where?

I've seen the meme's on the Googles, but I think with a little extra foo (a partial search) I found the source:

In the Apostolic Creed we confess: "I believe in the holy Christian* Church." That means, I believe that there is no sin, no curse, no evil in the Church of God. Faith says: "I believe that." But if you want to believe your eyes you will find many shortcomings and offenses in the members of the holy Church. You see them succumb to temptation, you see them weak in faith, you see them giving way to anger, envy, and other evil dispositions. "How can the Church be holy?" you ask. It is with the Christian Church as it is with the individual Christian. If I examine myself I find enough unholiness to shock me. But when I look at Christ in me I find that I am altogether holy. And so it is with the Church.
Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians - 1535

That's a commentary on Galatians 3: verse 13. Which Luther quotes in the same text as:

Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.

* is there a creed that says "holy Christian church"?


What does the The Episcopal Church mean when it says it allows everyone to participate in Holy Communion? What does the The Episcopal Church mean when it says it allows everyone to participate in Holy Communion? What is meant by "everyone"? Is it "all Christians", "all observant Christians", or "all human beings regardless of baptism"?

Canon 1, section 17 of the Canon law of the Episcopal Church states,

  No unbaptized person shall be eligible to receive Holy Communion in this Church.

This restricts reception of Holy Communion to Christians only. Actual practices differ some between Episcopal parishes, with respect to further restrictions on who can receive. I know of parishes where the custom is to allow any baptized Christian to receive, and others which restrict reception to those delay Communion until a later time, for example, until after a course of instruction, which means that some baptized Christians might be excluded, for example those younger than a particular age. Every parishes at which I have attended communion make it public either by posting the information in a prominent place, or by means of an announcement just prior to the Communion part of the Service the particular custom of the parish as far as who can receive communion.

The canons, and the US Book of Common Prayer further restrict who can receive communion. According to the US Book Of Common Prayer, (P. 409) Baptized persons who are living a "notoriously evil life", "those who have done wrong to their neighbors and are a scandal to other members of the congregation", when "there is hatred between members of the congregation", and where there has been hatred, and one side is sincerely repentant, but "those on the other side refuse to forgive"are to be informed privately that they may not "come to the Holy Table until he (or she) has given clear proof of repentance and amendment of life",

In those parishes of which I have personal knowledge, the general custom is that a visitor is welcome to present himself or herself for Holy Communion if that person is eligible to present himself or herself for Holy Communion the parish he or she customarily attends.

Persons who are not eligible to receive Holy Communion, are in some parishes, still welcome to present themselves at the communion rail, in order to receive a Pastoral Blessing.


In the Christian Reformed Churches, who evaluates the pastor's theological beliefs? Note: This question is admittedly a bit technical, but I hope it serves to clarify differences in polity between two distinct but related Reformed traditions in the US.

In the brand of presbyterianism that I am most familiar with, the PCA, prospective pastors (teaching elders) must affirm the Westminster Standards.  They are expected to express any "exceptions" they may have – that is, if they have views that are at odds with the Standards, they must communicate them.

These exceptions are evaluated by the presbytery before the prospective pastor is ordained, and the presbytery ordains the man only if his exceptions are deemed not to "strike at the vitals" of the system of belief.

Now, I'm wondering if there is a comparable procedure in the "modified presbyterianism" of the Christian Reformed Church in North America.  Of course, one difference would be that the standards being affirmed there would be the Three Forms of Unity.  But perhaps more significant is the body that evaluates candidate's theology – according to Wikipedia, it is the congregation, not a higher court, that ordains:

  ministers are ordained and credentialed by a local congregation, not the regional classis or presbytery. (source)

My questions, then, are:

What is the role of individual congregations of the CRCNA in evaluating a prospective pastor's adherence to the Three Forms of Unity?

Do they lead the effort, work together with/below a higher court, or have no role?

Does any higher court in the denomination have the authority to prevent a candidate from being ordained by a congregation if it deems the candidate's views to be heretical?

According to the CRCNA Church Order 2015, nominations for office are presented by the council.

Article 4 a. In calling and electing to an office, the council shall
ordinarily present to the congregation a nomination of at least twice
the number to be elected. When the council submits a nomination which
totals less than twice the number to be elected, it shall give reasons
for doing so.

The council is "composed of the minister(s),
the elders, and the deacons", Page 71.
The members of the congregation then vote on the nominees.
The classis (representatives from a group of churches within a particular region) also has to approve the ordination or appointment of ministers, as per Article 10.

Article 10
a. The ordination of a candidate for the ministry of the
Word requires the approval of the classis of the calling church and of
the synodical deputies. The classis, in the presence of the deputies,
shall examine the candidate concerning the candidate’s doctrine and
life in accordance with synodical regulations. The ordination shall be
accompanied by the laying on of hands by the officiating minister.
b.
The installation of a minister shall require the approval of the
classis of the calling church or its interim committee, to which the
minister shall have previously presented good ecclesiastical
testimonials of doctrine and life which have been provided by the
former council and classis.

It is not immediately obvious to me what is done in the event of a minister whose opinion on a doctrine changes from orthodoxy to heresy, after his ordination. If anyone knows, please comment and I will update my answer.
In general, I would recommend reading the CRCNA Church Order for more details on ordination and appointment of ministers.
Note: I don't belong to the CRCNA, so I may have misunderstood the application or details of their church order myself. If any discrepancies are found, I will update my answer.