Which regional rules of lent fasting or holy days of obligation should a Catholic follow? If I'm Catholic Argentinian by birth and citizenship and reside in Argentina, then the only thing to check is if I'm Eastern Catholic or Roman Catholic.
If I'm

Roman Catholic,

French in nationality and citizenship by birth,

but I recently renounced my French citizenship temporarily

to apply to some other citizenship say of Country X

and have yet to reapply for French citizenship because I don't yet have time

but I intend to reapply for French citizenship

and I reside in Germany, then

Which set of holy days of obligation will I follow? (France, Germany, Country X, a certain intersection, a certain union)
Which lent fasting rules will I follow? (France, Germany, Country X, a certain intersection, a certain union)
How do the answers above change if I reacquire my French citizenship?

Of course I'm not asking specifically about France, Germany and Roman Catholicism (This question extends to Eastern Catholicism and whatever is full communion with Roman Catholicism). I'm asking in general:

Which diocese/region/country/whatever do Catholics (I'm asking for roman catholicism, but you can answer eastern or other full communion's if you want) fall under for purposes of holy days of obligation or lent, do when they have dual or renounced citizenships or when they reside in a country that is not of their citizenship?

Related:
Are Filipino Roman Catholics required to not have meat on all Fridays of Lent?
Google calendar for catholic holdiays/holy days of obligation?

The rule for fasting is "when in Rome, do as the Romans do." This is exactly the case where that saying derives. Where you are on the particular day determines whether you must abstain or fast regardless where you are from.
A typical occurrence for this would be in parts of the United States when St. Patrick's day falls on a Friday in Lent. Some bishops especially where the population has Irish heritage will dispense from the obligation to abstain from meat. It's entirely permissible for one to cross diocese boundaries to be able to have meat on that Friday.
Holy days of Obligations bind based upon where one has "domicile" (or quasi-domicile), which basically means based upon where one primarily resides and intends to return if absent. If you move to a new country and intend to reside there long term, you must follow the local rules for Holy Days. If you visit a country, you follow your home region's rules. See Holy Days of Obligation


Why did John the Baptist compare the holy spirit with dove? John 1:32 reads:

  And John gave this witness, saying, "I saw the Spirit coming down from
  heaven like a dove and resting on him".

Why did John the Baptist compare the holy spirit with a dove?

Why is the dove considered a special bird? Is this related to its use in the peace logo?

Although I cannot give you a definitive answer to your question, I will tell you what I have come to believe from my study of the Bible.

It may have been God himself who decided to use the image of a dove in this case.

At that time the heart of worship was the Pentateuch, or the first five books of the Bible written by Moses. these were supported by the prophets.

All Israelite children were educated on these books, since the Law was the guide for all facets of life.

They would be very familiar with the story of Noah and the flood, and when Noah sent out  Raven to see if the waters had begun to dry up the Raven did not return, so Noah then sent out a Dove which returned with an olive branch.

Gen 8:7 through 11

  7  And he sent forth a raven, which went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth.

  8  Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground;

  9  But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark.

  10  And he stayed yet other seven days; and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark;

  11  And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth.

And just as the Dove announced that the world was beginning to become available as a habitant. So the Dove in:

Matthew 3:16  KJV

  And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

Mark 1:10  KJV

  And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:

Luke 3:22  KJV

  And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

John 1:32  KJV

  And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.

Announced that Heaven was beginning to become to become available as an eternal habitant for man.

Of course that is only my belief and you may or may not accept that.

"you can vote however you want"


From a Calvinist perspective, does Limited Atonement make the Gospel offer empty? It seems to me that the limited atonement of Calvinism makes the Gospel offer seem empty. Let's say that I hear someone saying that he is in need of $100 and I tell him "I have $100, I can give it to you if you want", and he replies "That's ok, one of my friends already told me that he'd help me out", and when he leaves the room I tell the other guys that were present there "I told him I'd give him the money, but I don't actually have $100" ... what would you think of my character? Would that show that I'm a man of integrity? Not at all. That's how I think God would be if the limited atonement point of Calvinism is true.

The Gospel is offered to everyone, right? God commands all people from everywhere to repent and believe the Gospel, correct (Mark 1:15, Acts 17:30)? Why would God extend His gift of salvation to everyone who believes (John 3:16) if that offer is empty for some? How do Calvinists explain this?

You perception of what limited atonement means is incorrect, therefore, your analogy is flawed.

Limited atonement is not a declaration that the atonement is not enough to cover the world. On the contrary, Christ's death is infinitely sufficient. Limited atonement is a declaration that the world will only receive atonement in limited number (i.e. the elect).

You analogy portrays the atonement as bankrupt, when it is actually superabundant. What it did get right is that some will never receive it. Only the elect receive the atonement, therefore, the atonement is limited to the elect.

If we were to make a proper analogy similar to yours, you would have to be a mint with an infinite supply and ability to make legitimate money. Now your friend would come to you saying he needs money, and upon finding that you have it, he still refuses to take it. Though your money is sufficient to cover his debts, it is limited to only those to whom it is actually paid out1.

You must also remember that Calvinism works in tandem with the other four points. Inevitably, every discussion of one point leads to discussion of the others, because they are so tightly linked. Calvinism's approach to theology in general is a kind of "theory of everything of salvation" meant to be understood as a whole rather than piece-meal. Focusing exclusively on one point is where many people run into their objections.

Here are some general references on Limited Atonement:

Wikipedia
CARM (this one helps explain the reasoning "only the elect are atoned, therefore atonement is limited")
Theopedia (getting a little more involved)
Some of the sources on Wikipedia's article are very involved if you want to really delve into this.

1. With this explanation, I've actually argued that everyone believes in Limited Atonement, because there is surely no infinity of transgressions. They can certainly be counted. Opinion, that's why it's a footnote.


Why does Isaiah not mention himself after chapter 39? Why is it that after the 39th chapter of Isaiah that there is no more third person. In addition, if Isaiah composed this book why is it in third person to begin with? Are there three authors to Isaiah? Two of them coming in after the 39th chapter.

It is generally accepted that Isaiah chapters 1-39 were written by Isaiah, son of Amoz, who lived during the reigns of Kings Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah of Judah, although there were numerous later additions and changes to that portion of the book. Uta Ranke-Heinemann, in Putting Away Childish Things, page 230, dates chapters 24-27, the 'Little Apocalypse of Isaiah', to the late post-Exilic period. It is not unusual for an author to write about himself in the third person, and scholars accept the historicity of Isaiah and accept him as the author of the opening chapters of his book.

Chapters 40-55 are attributed to an anonymous author now known as Second Isaiah or Deutero-Isaiah, who lived during the Babylonian Exile. This author had a very different style to that of First Isaiah, who used brief, emphatic diction, compared to Second Isaiah's poetic style and more extensive vocabulary.

Chapters 56-66 are attributed to another anonymous author now known as Third Isaiah or Trito-Isaiah. The style of Third Isaiah is similar to that of Second Isaiah, but differences of content and focus create a seam in the present book.

Abraham Ibn Ezra, a Jewish scholar of Spain during the twelfth century was probably the first to raise questions about the authorship of the Book of Isaiah. It has also been proposed that the writings of II Isaiah and III Isaiah were originally separate books, but were subsequently appended to the original Book of Isaiah.


What is the basis for penance (satisfaction) in sacramental confession? From the Catholic Encyclopedia, The Sacrament of Penance (Confession):

  As stated above, the absolution given by the priest to a penitent who
  confesses his sins with the proper dispositions remits both the guilt
  and the eternal punishment (of mortal sin). There remains, however,
  some indebtedness to Divine justice which must be cancelled here or
  hereafter. In order to have it cancelled here, the
  penitent receives from his confessor what is usually called his
  "penance", usually in the form of certain prayers which he is to say,
  or of certain actions which he is to perform, such as visits to a
  church, the Stations of the Cross, etc. Alms deeds, fasting, and
  prayer are the chief means of satisfaction, but other penitential
  works may also be enjoined. The quality and extent of the penance is
  determined by the confessor according to the nature of the sins
  revealed, the special circumstances of the penitent, his liability to
  relapse, and the need of eradicating evil habits. Sometimes the
  penance is such that it may be performed at once; in other cases it
  may require a more or less considerable period, as, e.g., where it is
  prescribed for each day during a week or a month. But even then the
  penitent may receive another sacrament (e.g., Holy Communion)
  immediately after confession, since absolution restores him to the
  state of grace. He is nevertheless under obligation to continue the
  performance of his penance until it is completed.

It would seem that, given a sincerely contrite disposition, the eternal debt debt is satisfied with no further action.

On what basis (preferably with scriptural founding) does the Catholic Church teach that an act of penance can satisfy the temporal debt of sin?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has this to say on satisfaction:

1459 Many sins wrong our neighbor. One must do what is possible in order to repair the harm (e.g., return stolen goods, restore the reputation of someone slandered, pay compensation for injuries). Simple justice requires as much. But sin also injures and weakens the sinner himself, as well as his relationships with God and neighbor. Absolution takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused.62 Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must "make satisfaction for" or "expiate" his sins. This satisfaction is also called "penance."
1460 The penance the confessor imposes must take into account the penitent's personal situation and must seek his spiritual good. It must correspond as far as possible with the gravity and nature of the sins committed. It can consist of prayer, an offering, works of mercy, service of neighbor, voluntary self-denial, sacrifices, and above all the patient acceptance of the cross we must bear. Such penances help configure us to Christ, who alone expiated our sins once for all. They allow us to become co-heirs with the risen Christ, "provided we suffer with him."63

The satisfaction that we make for our sins, however, is not so much ours as though it were not done through Jesus Christ. We who can do nothing ourselves, as if just by ourselves, can do all things with the cooperation of "him who strengthens" us. Thus man has nothing of which to boast, but all our boasting is in Christ ... in whom we make satisfaction by bringing forth "fruits that befit repentance." These fruits have their efficacy from him, by him they are offered to the Father, and through him they are accepted by the Father.64

62 DS 1712 (Council of Trent, 1551)
63 ⇒ Rom 8:17; ⇒ Rom 3:25; ⇒ 1 Jn 2:1-2; cf. DS 1690 (Council of Trent, 1551)
64 DS 1691 (Council of Trent, 1551); cf. ⇒ Phil 4:13; ⇒ 1 Cor 1:31; ⇒ 2 Cor 10:17; ⇒ Gal 6:14; ⇒ Lk 3:8.

The Biblical references are [all RSV-CE]:

Rom 8:17 — and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.
Rom 3:25 — ... Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.
1 Jn 2:1–2 — If anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for  the sins of the whole world.
Phil 4:13 — I can do all things in him who strengthens me.
1 Cor 1:31 — Let him who boasts boast in the Lord.
2 Cor 10:17 — Let him who boasts boast of the Lord.
Gal 6:14 — But far be it from me to glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.
Lk 3:8 —  Bear fruits that befit repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father'; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham.

The biblical basis for penance is thus Romans 8:17, the patient acceptance of the cross we must bear to be conformed to Christ who bore his cross for the sin of the world. The penance imposed by the priest is a small suffering in our own life to remind us of Jesus' ultimate sacrifice in his; because of his suffering, he is able to support us in ours. And so, having accepted our own little cross, we might bear the fruits of repentance: the "turning back to God" and the change of life that must engender.


Why would angels climb a stairway if they have wings? I was just reading about Jacob's Dream at Bethel and I had a question:
Why would angels be ascending and descending a stairway (or a ladder, in other versions of the Christian Bible) from Earth to Heaven if they possess of wings?

Jacob's Dream at Bethel
10Jacob left Beersheba and set out for Harran. 11When he reached a certain place, he stopped for the night because the sun had set. Taking one of the stones there, he put it under his head and lay down to sleep. 13He had a dream in which he saw a stairway resting on the earth, with its top reaching to heaven, and the angels of God were ascending and descending on it.
Genesis 28:10-13 | New International Version (NIV)

There seems to be no denying that in the Christian Bible, angels have wings.

There are definitely two types of angels mentioned in the Bible that have wings - cherubim and seraphim:

“The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be” (Exodus 25:20).
“And the sound of the wings of the cherubim was heard as far as the outer court, like the voice of God Almighty when he speaks” (Ezekiel 10:5).
“In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple.  Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew” (Isaiah 6:1-2).

Hebrews 1:14 tells us that angels are spirit beings, and since angels are not bound by the laws of the physical universe, it is unclear as to why the angels would require wings. Often, angels take the appearance of men (wingless).
In Genesis 28:10-12 Jacob sees something similar to a ladder or a stairway (Hebrew word: sullam) which signifies a connection between God and man. In this instance, it was God who provided the means necessary to link Himself to man as opposed to the men of Babel in Genesis 11 who tried to reach heaven by their own actions, aside from the help of God.  Remember, this was a dream Jacob had.  It was not a physical or real ladder/stairway, but a vision used to convey a message to Jacob.


How does one discern a calling to the vocation of religious life? Approaching this from a Catholic perspective, I'd like to ask believers how they came to know that they were called to join the religious life (as a brother or nun), as opposed to the other vocations (priesthood, marriage, single life etc). Rephrasing the same question, what should a believer look for when discerning whether they are called to the vocation of religious life?

Here are some resources:

Vocation to the Religious State by St. Alphonsus de Liguori
Vocations Explained: Matrimony, Virginity, the Religious State and the Priesthood by A Vincentian Father.
Vocations by Rev. William Doyle, S.J.
Religious Vocation: An Unnecessary Mystery by Fr. Richard Butler, O.P.

See also Pope Pius XII's apostolic constitution Sede Sapientiæ on vocations to the religious life says (part II.) that two necessary conditions must be met when discerning a vocation: that one is called by God and called by the Church.


What is the best way to distinguish when God (the son) is talking in His human nature or in His divine? In Mark 13:32, Yeshua says:

  But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

I'm going to use Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers since he is not as obvious as other commentators, and he says something interesting that I'll quote at the end:

  Neither the Son.--The addition to St. Matthew's report is every way remarkable. It indicates the self-imposed limitation of the divine attributes which had belonged to our Lord as the eternal Son, and the acquiescence in a power and knowledge which, like that of the human nature which He assumed, were derived and therefore finite. Such a limitation is implied by St. Paul, when he says that our Lord "being in the form of God . . . made Himself of no reputation" (or better, emptied Himself), "and took upon Him the form of a servant." (See Note on Philippians 2:6-7.) It is clear that we cannot consistently take the word "knoweth" as having a different meaning in this clause from that which it bears in the others; and we must therefore reject all interpretations which explain away the force of the words as meaning only that the Son did not declare His knowledge of the time of the far-off event.

In Luke 22:42 Yeshua says:

  Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.

Ellicott refers us to Matthew 26:39, in which he says:

  Now the "cup" is brought to His lips, and His human will at once shrinks from it and accepts it. The prayer which He had taught His disciples to use, "Lead us not into temptation," is now His prayer, but it is subordinated to that other prayer, which is higher even than it, "Thy will be done." In the prayer "If it be possible" we recognise, as in Mark 13:32, the natural, necessary limits of our Lord's humanity In one sense "with God all things are possible," but even the Divine Omnipotence works through self-imposed laws, in the spiritual as in the natural world, and there also ends cannot be obtained except through their appointed and therefore necessary means.

In John 20:17 Yeshua says:

  Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Ellicott says:

  My God, and your God.--This phrase contains the same fulness of meaning, and adds the special thought of the continuity of the human nature of our Lord, which has already appeared in the word "brethren."

So that seems simple enough. Anytime god the son says something that contradicts his divinity, we just ascribe this to his human nature. However, in John 14:28 Yeshua says:

  Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

Ellicott says:

  On the part of those who assert the divine nature, it has been contended that the Father is greater than the Son only as regards the human nature of the Son; but this is not here thought of. In this passage, as in others of the New Testament, it is plainly asserted that in the divine nature there is a subordination of the Son to the Father.

So apparently ascribing one thing to his human nature while excluding his divinity is wrong, and probably some sort of Nestorianism.

What is the best way to distinguish when god the son is talking in his human nature or his divine?

Your question contains or suggests several good questions, but I will focus on the last paragraph. The historic Chalcedonian position on "What is the best way to distinguish when god the son is talking in his human nature or his divine?" is to not make such a distinction.

For clarity, let me emphasise that in this answer I am assuming that God the Son specifically refers to the incarnate Word, Jesus Christ.

Historically, since the Third Ecumenical Council (Ephesus) most of Christianity has accepted that that distinction is not appropriate. This was expressed by the council in Cyril of Alexandria's fourth anathema against Nestorius:

  If anyone shall divide between two persons or subsistences those expressions (φωνάς) which are contained in the Evangelical and Apostolical writings, or which have been said concerning Christ by the Saints, or by himself, and shall apply some to him as to a man separate from the Word of God, and shall apply others to the only Word of God the Father, on the ground that they are fit to be applied to God:  let him be anathema.

The actions of Christ are to be attributed to the person of Christ  in which the two natures are united. We can say things like "Christ had the authority to forgive sins because the divine nature is united in His person." It is wrong, however, "The divine nature (to the exclusion of the human nature) of Christ forgave sins"

As to the Father's will, or how the Son is less than the Father, or how the Father is the God of the Son, those are other worthwhile questions.


What is the basis for saying that the Catholic Church is the largest charitable organization in the world? I would prefer actual numbers comparing it to other organizations.

In addition, bonus points if you can demonstrate that the catholic church effectively does the most good or essentially highly efficient with how they spend their money.  It is quite irrelevant if someone receives lots of donations but does not spend the money well.  None of the links in the following question seemed to work or seemed highly speculative to me (the economist answer).

This question is related.  This is is a source I found online; I'm not sure what to think of it though.

Three factors enter in to answering this question.
Number 1 ). is the Catholic Church a charitable organization?

  A charitable organization is a type of non-profit organization (NPO). It differs from other types of NPOs in that it centers on philanthropic goals as well as social well-being (e.g. charitable, educational, religious, or other activities serving the public interest or common good).

According to that definition yes the Catholic Church is a charitable organization.

Number 2 ) how many people make up the Catholic Church?

  There are an estimated 1.2 billion Roman Catholics in the world, according to Vatican figures. More than 40% of the world's Catholics live in Latin America - but Africa has seen the biggest growth in Catholic congregations in recent years.

That means the charitable organization known as the Catholic Church is 1.2 billion people strong.

Number 3). Is there any other charitable organization that can claim more than 1.2 billion people as members?

No there is not.

Therefore the Catholic Church is in fact the largest charitable organization on earth.


Does Mark 2:21-22 mean that we don't need to obey Old Testament Laws? Jesus said:

Mark 2:21-22 (NLT)

  “Besides, who would patch old clothing with new cloth? For the new patch would shrink and rip away from the old cloth, leaving an even bigger tear than before.  And no one puts new wine into old wineskins. For the wine would burst the wineskins, and the wine and the skins would both be lost. New wine calls for new wineskins.”

Can we interpret those verses to mean that we only need to concentrate on the New Testament and ignore the laws in the Old Testament?  Even the 10 commandments are reduced to just two commands in new testament.

Even though as bruised reed, stated your question is not directed at any specific denomination, and as such becomes a truth question, I feel compelled to answer your question since it, points out a common problem encountered when reading the Bible. Many Scriptures taken alone are at best confusing and at worst misleading. Your question appears to be spawned in that category.

Lets take a look at those Scriptures you quoted and see what other Scriptures can help us understand what they refer to.

All Scripture is quoted from the King James translation, unless otherwise noted.

  Mark 2:21 and 22  No man also seweth a piece of new cloth on an old garment: else the new piece that filled it up taketh away from the old, and the rent is made worse. 22  And no man putteth new wine into old bottles: else the new wine doth burst the bottles, and the wine is spilled, and the bottles will be marred: but new wine must be put into new bottles.

When we also consider that Jesus was answering this specific question:

  Mar 2:18  And the disciples of John and of the Pharisees used to fast: and they come and say unto him, Why do the disciples of John and of the Pharisees fast, but thy disciples fast not?

and that he prefaced the Scriptures quoted in your question with:

  Mark 2:19 and 20  And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bridechamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them? as long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. 20  But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast in those days.

We are then being directed to a specific train of thought which is that there is something much more important in that hearing what Jesus has to say; is much more important than how it is to be enacted, after his departure. Or put another way he is telling them that before they can instruct others they must themselves have the whole story. This is emphasized by verses 19 and 20.

Now we can analyze the last Scriptures in this diatribe, with a clearer understanding.

Verse 21 and 22 are used as an illustration which they would be familiar with, that being that when an un-shrunk fabric or animal skin (Goat skin was used to fabricate wineskins)
is inserted into already shrunken cloth or skins would as it shrank; instead of repairing, further ruin the old.

Why this is important to understand can be best illustrated by considering that without his resurrection, his death would have no impact. It is only his taking up his life after, everyone knew that he had died, which gives meaning to his promise of eternal life.

The proper attitude toward how the Old Testament is to be viewed in relation to the New Testament is in the following Scriptures:

  Matthew 5:17and 18  Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18  For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

In these two Scriptures we are taught that:

The laws of God given in the Old Testament will always be in effect until:

  Revelation 21:1  And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

That Jesus came to the Earth expressly to fulfill those requirements laid down by God, because we could not live up to Gods standards, but he could.

Hope this helps.


Was Zacchaeus saved before he met Jesus? If Zacchaeus was saved when he met Jesus, then wouldn't Zacchaeus be saved by works?

8 And Zacchaeus stood, and said unto the Lord; Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold.
9 And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham.
Luke 19:8-9

Is this saying Zacchaeus was saved from hell because he decided to do good deeds?
I thought we were saved by grace through faith?

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Ephesians 2:8-9

Would it be possible that Zacchaeus was already saved before he met Jesus? Because if not it looks like he gets saved by works.

Zacchaeus' good works are after he addresses Jesus as 'Lord'

So step 1. Was encountering Jesus, step 2. Believing in Him as the Christ - which is not explicitly stated, but necessarily occurred prior to step 3. Confessing Him as Lord step 4. Good works.

Summary: Zacchaeus' good works were a consequence of salvation, not a cause of it.


Do The Original Houses of Numbers Still Exist? Are there still leaders of these households or are they obsolete?

Reuben: 46,500
Simeon: 59,300
Gad: 45,650
Judah: 74,600
Issachar: 54,400
Zebulun: 57,400
Joseph:

Ephraim: 40,500
Manasseh: 32,200

Benjamin: 35,400
Dan: 62,700
Asher: 41,500
Naphtali: 53,400
Levites: ?

A few known facts:

The tribe of Levi was not allowed to be counted:
"But the Levites were not numbered among them by their fathers’ tribe;
for the LORD had spoken to Moses, saying:
Only the tribe of Levi you shall not number, nor take a census of them among the children of Israel" — Numbers 1:47–49.

The tribe of Levi was not assigned any land of its own.
Instead, the Levites were spread throughout the lands of the other tribes and providing the religious structure of the country, with Aaron's descendants as priests.

Joseph's two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, were adopted by Jacob (Israel), forming two half-tribes in place of the tribe of Joseph: "And now your two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, who were born to you in the land of Egypt before I came to you in Egypt, are mine; as Reuben and Simeon, they shall be mine." — Genesis 48:5.

The birthright promises were inherited by Ephraim and Manasseh, and they retained the family name Israel.

The messianic promises were inherited by Judah, and passed through King David and his descendants.

When Israel split into two kingdoms, the tribe of Benjamin remained with, and eventually became assimilated into, the tribe of Judah, who are also known as Jews.
Even during Jesus's time, some people still identified themselves as being Benjaminites.
Paul for instance, in Phillippians 3:5, described himself as "of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee".

The Kingdom of Israel was taken into captivity by the Assyrians.

The Kingdom of Judah (including Benjamin) was later taken into captivity by the Babylonians.
Eventually though, they returned to their homeland, centered around Jerusalem.
They are the ancestors of modern Jews.
Today, those named Cohen are considered descendants of the Levitical priesthood (Y-chromosomal Aaron - Wikipedia).

In the first century, historian Josephus recorded that "the ten tribes are beyond the Euphrates till now, and are an immense multitude and not to be estimated in numbers".
Since then, those ten tribes of Israel have been lost to mainstream history, but there is much speculation about what happened to them.
One theory is that they were taken by the Assyrians who migrated from the Black Sea area into what is now central Germany.
From there the tribes continued on, settling Scandinavia, the British Isles, and northwestern Europe.
Many Danes believe themselves descendants of the tribe of Dan.
Scots have significant Persian genes, and traditionally avoid certain non-kosher foods, such as eels and pork.
Some people (including Queen Victoria herself) believe that the current British throne is the continuation of the line of David.
It's a fascinating subject, especially for students of prophecy, but not an essential part of Christianity itself.


What are the historical arguments against a literal interpretation of Luke 22:44? This question led me to reread Luke 22:44 in various translations, and I noticed that all of them used a comparison, as if Jesus’s sweat was similar to great drops of blood, but not actually great drops of blood. Then I read this commentary:

  Athanasius even goes so far as to pronounce a ban upon those who deny this sweat of blood.

What arguments was Athanasius fighting against? In addition, what made this issue so significant to Athanasius that he banned the belief outright? As of yet, I’ve been unable to find either his attackers’ arguments or anything from Athanasius himself on the issue. The commentary mentions one “Theophylact”, but I can’t seem to find him either. All Wikipedia had is this list, and all of them lived well after Athanasius.

By historical, do you mean arguments coming from church history aka the early church fathers?

Just a couple notes: sweating drops of blood is a medical condition called hematidrosis. It is understandable if Jesus did undergo this amount of stress when looking forward to "becoming sin" (2 Corinthians 5:21) and being cursed by God (Galatians 3:13 which references Deuteronomy 21:22-23) and having the wrath of God poured out on him instead of us. We can be confident that it wasn't the physical torture that he would have to endure that caused him duress, as many early Christians were tortured and killed in similar to worse ways (Peter crucified upside-down or another disciple being burned while being crucified) and yet they would be singing hymns approaching their death. Jesus had much much worse to deal with - bearing the sins of the entire world.

Athanasius is often attributed as being the most important and influential Christian in defense of the Trinitarian conception of God, mostly against Arianism. However, Arianism would have no problem with the drops of blood of Jesus because Arianism believes in the full humanity of Jesus but not the full deity. So, as bradimus commented, it likely was against Docetism, which rejects the full humanity of Jesus. There are all sorts of other heresies in the early church that had to be protected against, such as Nestorianism, modalism/Patripassianism/Sabellianism, Pelagianism, monophysitism, homoiousian (not the name of a heresy but a view of Jesus contrary to homoousian), etc. Very interesting reads.

Conclusion, Jesus had to be fully God and fully man united in one person, the hypostatic union, or else the atonement fails and should be considered heterodoxy.


Did Jephthah sacrifice his daughter? In Judges 11, Jephthah vows to give whatever comes out of the door of his house as a burnt offering.

  Judges 11:30-40 (ESV) [emphases mine]

  30 And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD and said, "If you will give the Ammonites into my hand, 31 then whatever comes out from the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the Ammonites shall be the LORD’s, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering."

  34 Then Jephthah came to his home at Mizpah. And behold, his daughter came out to meet him with tambourines and with dances.

  39 And at the end of two months, she returned to her father, who did with her according to his vow that he had made.

Did Jephthah really sacrifice his daughter? This clearly couldn't be
the will of God (e.g. Jeremiah 7:31, 19:5, 32:35).
What did Jephthah mean by his vow?
Surely he knew who lived in his house, and had some expectations on what could come out of the door?

This is an odd passage, since, as you noted, he would certainly have known his household.  Also, the Law of Moses strictly forbade human sacrifice, particularly the sacrifice of one's own children, categorizing it as an abomination before the Lord, so such an offering would never have been acceptable to God anyway.

It's interesting to note that the mourning of Jephthah's daughter and her companions was not for her life, but for her virginity; she would never have the blessing (it was still unequivocally considered a blessing back then) of having children.  And verse 39 says "she had never known a man" in the ESV, but the KJV renders it in present tense: "[Jephthah] did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man"

Taken together, these points suggest that she may have been "offered to the Lord" in a different way: as a consecrated servant of God of some sort which would preclude her getting married and having children.


What was the Christian response to death-loving practices of Ancient Roman society? In Ancient Rome, gladiators would fight to the death for the amusement of the crowd.  What did Christians do to stop this?

Christians had a revulsion against the exploitation of the games, as evidenced by the story of Telemachus, an Egyptian monk who, in  403 AD threw himself into the arena to stop the gladitorial games. Telemachus died in the melee already on the field, but Emperor Honartius was so inspired by the sacrifice that he put an end to the games on January 1, 404.
From Foxe's Book of Martyrs:

After this fortunate victory over the Goths a "triumph," as it was called, was celebrated at Rome. For hundreds of years successful generals had been awarded this great honor on their return from a victorious campaign. Upon such occasions the city was given up for days to the marching of troops laden with spoils, and who dragged after them prisoners of war, among whom were often captive kings and conquered generals. This was to be the last Roman triumph, for it celebrated the last Roman victory. Although it had been won by Stilicho, the general, it was the boy emperor, Honorius, who took the credit, entering Rome in the car of victory, and driving to the Capitol amid the shouts of the populace. Afterward, as was customary on such occasions, there were bloody combats in the Colosseum, where gladiators, armed with swords and spears, fought as furiously as if they were on the field of battle.
The first part of the bloody entertainment was finished; the bodies of the dead were dragged off with hooks, and the reddened sand covered with a fresh, clean layer. After this had been done the gates in the wall of the arena were thrown open, and a number of tall, well-formed men in the prime of youth and strength came forward. Some carried swords, others three-pronged spears and nets. They marched once around the walls, and stopping before the emperor, held up their weapons at arm's length, and with one voice sounded out their greeting, Ave, Caesar, morituri te salutant! "Hail, Caesar, those about to die salute thee!"
The combats now began again; the glatiators with nets tried to entangle those with swords, and when they succeeded mercilessly stabbed their antagonists to death with the three-pronged spear. When a glatiator had wounded his adversary, and had him lying helpless at his feet, he looked up at the eager faces of the spectators, and cried out, Hoc habet! "He has it!" and awaited the pleasure of the audience to kill or spare.
If the spectators held out their hands toward him, with thumbs upward, the defeated man was taken away, to recover if possible from his wounds. But if the fatal signal of "thumbs down" was given, the conquered was to be slain; and if he showed any reluctance to present his neck for the death blow, there was a scornful shout from the galleries, Recipe ferrum! "Receive the steel!" Privileged persons among the audience would even descend into the arena, to better witness the death agonies of some unusually brave victim, before his corpse was dragged out at the death gate.
The show went on; many had been slain, and the people, madly excited by the desperate bravery of those who continued to fight, shouted their applause. But suddenly there was an interruption. A rudely clad, robed figure appeared for a moment among the audience, and then boldly leaped down into the arena. He was seen to be a man of rough but imposing presence, bareheaded and with sun-browned face. Without hesitating an instant he advanced upon two gladiators engaged in a life-and-death struggle, and laying his hand upon one of them sternly reproved him for shedding innocent blood, and then, turning toward the thousands of angry faces ranged around him, called upon them in a solemn, deep-toned voice which resounded through the deep inclosure. These were his words: "Do not requite God's mercy in turning away the swords of your enemies by murdering each other!"
Angry shouts and cries at once drowned his voice: "This is no place for preaching!--the old customs of Rome must be observed!--On, gladiators!" Thrusting aside the stranger, the gladiators would have again attacked each other, but the man stood between, holding them apart, and trying in vain to be heard. "Sedition! sedition! down with him!" was then the cry; and the gladiators, enraged at the interference of an outsider with their chosen vocation, at once stabbed him to death. Stones, or whatever missiles came to hand, also rained down upon him from the furious people, and thus he perished, in the midst of the arena.
His dress showed him to be one of the hermits who vowed themselves to a holy life of prayer and self-denial, and who were reverenced by even the thoughtless and combat-loving Romans. The few who knew him told how he had come from the wilds of Asia on a pilgrimage, to visit the churches and keep his Christmas at Rome; they knew he was a holy man, and that his name was Telemachus-no more. His spirit had been stirred by the sight of thousands flocking to see men slaughter one another, and in his simple-hearted zeal he had tried to convince them of the cruelty and wickedness of their conduct. He had died, but not in vain. His work was accomplished at the moment he was struck down, for the shock of such a death before their eyes turned the hearts of the people: they saw the hideous aspects of the favorite vice to which they had blindly surrendered themselves; and from the day Telemachus fell dead in the Colosseum, no other fight of gladiators was ever held there.

As a religion, Christians also agitated against the Roman practice of infanticide as well, fishing live, discarded babies out of the Tiber.
In general, it can be said that Christians held those practices of the Romans that involved needless killing to be repulsive.


Why did Protestants abandon Liturgy of the Hours? In Divine office or Liturgy of the Hours as it is practiced in Catholic Church there's nothing bad for Protestants (or at least nothing of which I know that Protestants consider bad); prayer is good for all Christians and Psalms are a good basis. However, most Protestants don't pray this way. Why?

Did any of the reformers condemn it? Or did this tradition just fade away over time?

EDIT: I'm adding history, because I'm interrested mostly in the time when Liturgy of Hours vanished from practice of most Protestants (16th or 17th century? I don't know exactly). Modern Protestants' point of view has some value, but the best answer shouldn't rely on practice/ doctrine nowadays. I know that some denominations practice it (especially Lutherans); these are excluded from "protestantism" for this question's sake.

I imagine citation of some reformer, founder of some denomination, or at least a notable convert who prayed Liturgy of Hours before (i.e. former Catholic priest) or at least knew the practice and wrote anything about it. I'm not sure whether such a source is even available.

Less direct citations + few words on context and how it applies to Liturgy of Hours are also OK. For example some of early criticisms against prayer in someone other's words, including words of Bible, by someone who influenced some of the major branches of Protestantism. Such a criticism could apply if it sounds plausible to audience accustomed to Liturgy of Hours, though not necessarily understanding its significance - so "vain repetitions" as Narnian suggested are based on ignorance of the prayer's structure and therefore not acceptable to anyone knowing it, but fear of praying "only at set times" as LCIII mentioned could be easily accepted by someone who prayed it regularly for a long time, but didn't discover its value as a backbone of constant prayer.

An answer based solely on reasoning and Bible citations can be (temporarily) accepted as well if at least some of its points likely played role in the beginning of Protestantism. However, if some answer with solid historical reasoning and/or citations appears later, I will definitely accept the new one instead.

Protestantism is so broad that you can't avoid getting a broad answer. As the protestant church has no official head there is no official answer and there was never an official LOTH rejection meeting. Furthermore, some Protestant denominations still do practice LOTH. The best you can do in this case is summarize the most common Protestant beliefs and come up with the most probable yet not all-encompassing conclusions.

Here's a list with (I think) the most probable reasons to the least probable.

Protestants are more than likely not going to follow Liturgy of The Hours because...

...there are prayers to the saints/dead, which Protestants believe isn't good, so they'll throw whole Liturgy out--baby and bath water.
...it makes the prayer seem insincere, as opposed to a sincere, unscripted, heart-felt prayer conversation with God. The Protestant would cite this verse as their reasoning:

  Psalm 62:8 ESV Trust in him at all times, O people; pour out your heart before him; God is a refuge for us.

...setting a required time to pray gives the impression that that is the only or best time one needs to pray, when prayers should be constant. The Protestant would cite these verses as their reasoning:

  1 Thessalonians 5:17 ESV ...pray without ceasing.

  1 Thessalonians 1:2 ESV We give thanks to God always for all of you, constantly mentioning you in our prayers,

  2 Timothy 1:3 ESV I thank God whom I serve, as did my ancestors, with a clear conscience, as I remember you constantly in my prayers night and day.

...it's Catholic, and Protestants tend to buck against anything that Catholics promote.
...it's not in the Bible. Protestants are all about accepting no doctrine except that which is explicitly stated in the scriptures.
...it's unnecessary. While more open-minded Protestants may consider the Liturgy of the Hours helpful in its structure (ignoring prayers to the saints/dead), many would categorize it as just another reading/prayer plan similar to ones you could buy at a Christian bookstore. They give it no added spiritual significance.


what is the background situation of Paul's vow ? (Acts 18:18) After this, Paul stayed many days longer and then took leave of the brothers and set sail for Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila. At Cenchreae he had cut his hair, for he was under a vow. (Acts 18:18, ESV)

A theme repeated consistently throughout Acts of the Apostles is that the Jews unfairly attack Paul for not following Jewish religious laws. In each case, Acts defends Paul by providing evidence that he was a loyal Jew, even if the defence sometimes seems contrary to what Paul states in his epistles to be his beliefs, including that Christians are not under Jewish law.

The vow in Acts 18:18 that required Paul to cut his hair would be the Nazarite vow that is stipulated in Numbers 6:1-21.  Referring to claims that Paul taught his followers to abandon the Mosaic laws, Dennis E. Smith and Joseph Tyson say, in Acts and Christian Beginnings, page 225, "Luke intends to show that this is a false charge, and the taking of a vow of special devotion is probably intended to support the image of Paul as a faithful Jew."


What are the "evangelical counsels"? The question Was "love your enemies" ever included among the evangelical counsels? mentions evangelical counsels.  In the question James T mentions that they are something to be kept by monastics but not Christians in general.

What is the basis for evangelical counsels and what are some examples?

(Per Wikipedia), the evangelical counsels are three counsels (or pieces of wisdom that we should follow) in order to be "perfect".

Matthew 19:21 (NIV)
Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

There are three counsels that are considered "evangelical counsels":  chastity, poverty (or perfect charity), and obedience.
Salvation
The evangelical counsels are not considered part of the requirement for salvation.  As James T mentioned, these are often counsels kept by monks, but not by the general population.  A great quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia sums this up well:

To sum up: it is possible to be rich, and married, and held in honour by all men, and yet keep the Commandments and to enter heaven. Christ's advice is, if we would make sure of everlasting life and desire to conform ourselves perfectly to the Divine will, that we should sell our possessions and give the proceeds to others who are in need, that we should live a life of chastity for the Gospel's sake, and, finally, should not seek honours or commands, but place ourselves under obedience. These are the Evangelical Counsels, and the things which are counselled are not set forward so much as good in themselves, as in the light of means to an end and as the surest and quickest way of obtaining everlasting life.
Catholic Encyclopedia

Biblical Basis
The biblical basis for these are:
Chastity:

1 Corinthians 7:1 (NIV)
Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.”

Poverty/Perfect Charity

Matthew 19:21 (NIV)
Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

Obedience
The idea with this is that we should be obedient to the Catholic church and the people who God has put in authority over us. This is based somewhat on:

Luke 10:16 (NIV)
“Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

Therefore, the people who have been put in place to teach are teaching as if from Jesus himself.  Therefore, we should be obedient to them and their spiritual authority.
Desires of this world -vs- Evangelical Counsels
Essentially, there are three "good things" of this world:

Riches

Pleasures of the flesh and of the appetites (sexual appetite, food appetite, etc.)

Honors and positions of authority, which increases self love

These three things are not, in themselves, bad.  These three things will not deny you heaven.  However, these three things are what the evangelical counsels are attempting to address.
source: Catholic Encyclopedia


Surveys to find out which Christian denomination I am most like Are there any (free) surveys or questionnaires that I can use to determine which Christian denomination I am most like?

I have been a Christian for many years and have preferred to read the Bible and commentaries in order to determine what I believe is right (rather than just following the teachings of one particular denomination).  With this being the case, I have not really followed one Christian denomination over another.

Sure, here are a couple:

http://www.gotoquiz.com/which_christian_denomination_do_you_belong_to

http://www.selectsmart.com/FREE/select.php?client=christiandenom

But remember, denominations are not perfect, they are man-made, and fallible:.
The true body of Christ is made up of every born-again Christian, regardless of 'denomination'.


Is the Pentecostal concept of "praying in the Spirit" consistent with any pre-Pentecostal teachings? In a recent small group Bible study sponsored by a local Pentecostal church, attendees were encouraged to "pray in the Spirit." The study leader cited these verses:

So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my understanding; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my understanding. 1 Corinthians 14:15 (NIV)
And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the Lord's people. Ephesians 6:18 (NIV)
But you, dear friends, by building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in God’s love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life. Jude 20-21 (NIV)

The leader then continued to teach that "praying in the Spirit" meant to pray in "tongues"—a spiritual language that can only be spoken and interpreted miraculously. Is this interpretation of these passages consistent with any church doctrines or writings that predate Pentecostalism?

Praying in the Spirit is a concept that was put forth by Paul in the book of Romans.

  Romans 8:26 and 27  Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. 27  And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.

The underlying thought appears to be that since God is Spirit that communication between our spirit and Spirit God so to speak have their own language as indicated by intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

And in verse 27 he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, appears that the Spirit itself has a mental process foreign to ours, and that God looks at our hearts rather than our entreaties.

Hope this helps.


Does any church follow the Apostolic Tradition of Baptism ‘in the nude’, or was that never the tradition? The Apostolic Tradition was the work of Hippolytus, written somewhere between 215 and 400 AD. Recent scholars seem to take the later date (source). The whole writing can be found here: Apostolic Tradition.

Among the 'oddities' of this Tradition, seems to be that people were baptized 'nude', which I assume means that only deaconesses were overseeing the baptism of woman. Am I reading this correctly, or not?

  21 At the hour in which the cock crows, they shall first pray over the water. 2When they come to the water, the water shall be pure and flowing, that is, the water of a spring or a flowing body of water. 3Then they shall take off all their clothes. 4The children shall be baptized first. All of the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from their family. 5After this, the men will be baptized. Finally, the women, after they have unbound their hair, and removed their jewelry. No one shall take any foreign object with themselves down into the water. (Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition)

I think the deaconess assumption is unsound and contradicted:

  14He shall then baptize each of them once, laying his hand upon each of their  heads. 15Then he shall ask, "Do you believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was  born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and died, and rose on the third day living from the dead, and ascended into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of the Father, the one coming to judge the living and the dead?"

  16When each has answered, "I believe," he shall baptize a second time. 17Then he shall ask, "Do you believe in the Holy Spirit and the Holy Church and the resurrection of the flesh?" 18Then each being baptized shall answer, "I believe." And thus let him baptize the third time.

Now, it could just be translation (and a lack of a gender-neutral single pronoun), but that is a lot of "he". It continues in the same tone for quite some time. Note that is also seems to describe all the participants present at once, not individually.

There is nothing improper in this nakedness. It is not associated with any indecent act, humiliation, or lack of basic needs.

Also keep in mind: this is ancient Rome. Their views on nudity could be quite different from yours.


Should Mark 16:9-20 be in the Bible? The ending of the Gospel of Mark is a disputed passage, because different manuscripts have a different ending:

Some end at Mark 16:8
Some include Mark 16:9-20, like most Bible translations
Some include a shorter ending (NAB):

  And they reported all the instructions briefly to Peter’s companions. Afterwards Jesus himself, through them, sent forth from east to west the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. Amen.

Some include the Freer Logion (NAB):

  And they excused themselves, saying, ‘This age of lawlessness and
  unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow the truth and power of God
  to prevail over the unclean things dominated by the spirits [or, does
  not allow the unclean things dominated by the spirits to grasp the
  truth and power of God]. Therefore reveal your righteousness now.’
  They spoke to Christ. And Christ responded to them, ‘The limit of the
  years of Satan’s power is completed, but other terrible things draw
  near. And for those who sinned I was handed over to death, that they
  might return to the truth and no longer sin, in order that they might
  inherit the spiritual and incorruptible heavenly glory of
  righteousness. But….’

Many scholars have chosen the view that Mark 16:9-20 is a later addition, while others support its authenticity. Most of my Bibles have at least a footnote noting that the passage is not found in all manuscripts, with some even suggesting that it's not an original part of Mark. I've yet to see a Bible translation that omits it.

For reference, an article on bible-researcher.com cites many commentaries on the passage, while the Wikipedia article has a good encyclopaedical overview of the matter.

This will not be easy to answer properly, but I ask:

Is Mark 16:9-20 original or a later addition?
Should it be in the Bible?

The Greek vocabulary and grammar of the so-called longer ending of Mark is subtly different from the part that concludes "for they were afraid."  And it is indeed missing from some of the most ancient sources.

We can speculate on why.  Without either of the two disputed endings ("shorter" or "longer") the Gospel concludes with these words:

  So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had
  seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

Gulp. That's it?  Is it possible that a scribe sometime in history really wanted an ending with a more exhortatory flavor?

A definitive answer to your first question is difficult, but the evidence points to "yes, it's a later ending."  As to your second question, "should it be in the Bible?" with respect that's above your pay grade and mine.  It is in the Bible.


Good Urdu Translations of the Bible from the Masoretic and one of the Textus Receptuses, or just either? I am looking for urdu translations that are reasonably close to the reconstructions of the Hebrew Masoretic text and/or Greek Textus Receptus, being a literal translation. Like how despite the KJV translators deciding to translate the first verse "In the beginning created God, the Heaven and the Earth," because the Context clearly shows that the firmament is called "the Heavens," and the Schlachter 2000 translates it "Im Anfang schuf Gott die Himmel und die Erde --" the "heavens."

Not Young's Literal translation, because words can have different meanings, but obviously not "correcting" Luke 5 where Jesus tells Peter to let down all of the Nets, but Peter being a word the Bible says I can't say, and I agree, decided: I know better than you, I'll let down just the one net, like the N.I.V. does.

Technically it does not have to be close to the King James, but just as close word-for-word to an english Bible. Unfortunately even then, they might contradict each other, like the Spanish and English K.J.V.'s...

Pray this isn't that confusing...

Here, try this: a Friend just gave it to me in private: http://textus-receptus.com/wiki/Urdu_Bible


What is significant about the title of "Son of David" that was attributed to Jesus? The Book of Matthew begins by identifying Jesus with the title of "Son of David":

  The record of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham.  Matthew 1:1 NAS

At one time, two blind men call Jesus by the same title:

  As Jesus went on from there, two blind men followed Him, crying out, “Have mercy on us, Son of David!”  Matthew 9:27 NAS

Later, Jesus' identity as the Son of David becomes a point of contention:

  But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the wonderful things that He had done, and the children who were shouting in the temple, “Hosanna to the Son of David,” they became indignant.  Matthew 21:15 NAS

So, what is the significance of the title "Son of David" being attributed to Jesus?

David, of course, was the second King of Israel (later just Judah) who had descendants also upon the throne. We see that Jesus was indeed descended in direct lineage from David through many generations. In some cases in the Bible, "son of" is used to refer to descendants rather than literal sons. Thus, Jesus could be called a "son of David".

But because of the prophecy to David in 2 Samuel 7:16,

  And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever.

the Jewish people were looking for a King that would rule without end, many of course thinking that he would set up an earthly kingdom. Clearly this refers to David's descendants.

John 7:42 says that:

  Does not Scripture say that the Messiah will come from David's descendants and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?

Referring to 2 Samuel 7 (the line from which he will come) and Micah 5:2 (specifically naming Bethlehem as his birthplace).

Jesus, of course was the fulfillment of the prophecy of Psalm 110:1

  A Psalm of David 1 The Lord says to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.” (emphasis mine)

As we see in Mark 12:35-37, Jesus clearly states that this refers to him.

But perhaps most significantly and clearly is the prophecy in Isaiah 9:6-7:

  “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.”

There is little doubt that the Jewish authorities of the day missed this prophecy, clearly stating that a son is given...name is mighty God...upon the throne of David. In short, his title of "son of David" was the declaration that he was the promised Messiah, and God himself.

Source 1, Source 2, Source 3


Did the Church Fathers advocate celibacy? What is an overview of the Church Fathers' views on celibacy? Did they see celibacy as a higher or more spiritual calling than marriage? Did they see marriage as incompatible with a spiritual life? Was there general consensus or was opinion split?

The general consensus, following Paul's teaching, seems to be that marriage is good but celibacy is better.

Tertullian may have been the first to write about it:

  In short, there is no place at all where we read that nuptials are prohibited; of course on the ground that they are “a good thing.”  What, however, is better than this “good,” we learn from the apostle, who permits marrying indeed, but prefers abstinence; the former on account of the insidiousnesses of temptations, the latter on account of the straits of the times.

Chrysostom, in his homily on 1 Timothy 3, explains the biblical rules for bishops:

  “A Bishop then,” he says, “must be blameless, the husband of one wife.” This he does not lay down as a rule, as if he must not be without one, but as prohibiting his having more than one.

He later elaborates:

  If then “he who is married cares for the things of the world”, and a Bishop ought not to care for the things of the world, why does he say the husband of one wife? Some indeed think that he says this with reference to one who remains free from a wife. But if otherwise, he that hath a wife may be as though he had none. For that liberty was then properly granted, as suited to the nature of the circumstances then existing. And it is very possible, if a man will, so to regulate his conduct. For as riches make it difficult to enter into the kingdom of Heaven, yet rich men have often entered in, so it is with marriage.

He adds:

  “They that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh”; and Christ again says, “Whosoever forsaketh not all that he hath, he is not worthy of Me.” Why are not these things required by Paul? Plainly because few could be found of such a character, and there was need of many Bishops, that one might preside in every city.

So Chrysostom agrees that celibacy is better, but regards monogamous marriage as a practical alternative.

Evidently in Augustine's time, a monk named Jovinian wrote that celibacy was no better than marriage. Augustine responded with a treatise, On Holy Virginity, then, fearing he might be misunderstood, wrote another, On the Good of Marriage. [secondary source, can't find link to originals.]


Where can one access Aland's 23rd edition which was used for the first edition of the New American Standard Bible (NASB)? Where can one access Aland's Novum Testamentum Graece, 23rd edition, which was used for the first edition of the New American Standard Bible (NASB), according to this PDF?

The 23rd edition of Nestle-Aland was published in 1957, and unfortunately, Google Books often does not have preview available for books of this age. This edition is no exception, at least right now. It thus appears that used book stores are going to be your only option.

Depending on your country, the most appropriate online book shop may vary.  Abe Books is a good bet in the US at least.  A search for 1957 editions currently reveals one potential match.


Where do Catholics believe the historical narrative of the Bible begins? I heard on the Relevant Radio recently that the Genesis account of the deluge is prehistorical.  Meaning, it wasn't really recorded in histories the way other more specific accounts of historical events were.

But, where exactly does the Bible's historical content begin for Catholics?

Here's the radio broadcast of Go Ask Your Father I was listening to.

The problem with that question is that it makes a very difficult assumption: that the Church has an official position as to when the historical begins. Frankly, it doesn't.

The Church's view of Genesis can be best summed up by, "it means what it means." Yes, that is tautology, but it is necessarily so — we know that the Bible is 100% accurate in faith and morals as intended by the author, but it is very difficult to narrow down the theology beyond that. Further, it is not impossible for the author to make an error in matters historical as history is not strictly limited by faith and morals. (Placement of the Medes in the book of Daniel, for example, is generally considered an anachronism, but it does make sense if taken more symbollically).

On a personal note: I view the histories as starting with the book of Joshua and continuing from there. For, while there is definitely som mytho-symbolic content in Judges, my reading is that, overall, the concern of the documents is the historical progression of the nation. Yes, that does omit the entire pentateuch, but, while I will not deny that there is most certainly history in those documents, picking apart history from legend in those five is a bit tricky.


Is there biblical evidence that God knows my unspoken thoughts? I am trying to understand the broader rules for my own existence.  I know I exist and think. If I want to convey thoughts to another person or living being I have words.  Many times words are poor tools for adequately communicating thoughts.  How much easier would it be to have someone you trust just mind meld with you for a minute to understand what you are trying to express?

With that said, I would like to think that my thoughts are sovereign.  That I have a safe place closed off to work out ideas that are not fully formed.  A place where I can reason out ideas free of judgement.  Then when I am ready to commune or pray to God, that I can do so reasonably, respectfully, to not grieve his spirit.  To not act (speak) to God until I have a legitimate thought that is worth speaking about.  Not unlike forming a legitimate question at this web site.

So, is there precedence in the Bible that tells me that I my as well give that idea of a free independent sovereign mind free from God or anyone for that matter, where there a space in the universe, a place in the universe, that is not to be intruded upon by any spirit but my own so that I can exercise my own freedom of will of choice and thought?

Is there biblical evidence that God knows my unspoken thoughts?

Yes, indeed there is:

  12 For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. 13 Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account. - Hebrews 4:12-13 NIV

  2 Now it is required that those who have been given a trust must prove faithful. 3 I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself. 4 My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. 5 Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait until the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of the heart. At that time each will receive their praise from God. - 1 Corinthians 4:2-5 NIV

  3 When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures. - James 4:3 NIV1

  1 You have searched me, Lord,
      and you know me.
  2 You know when I sit and when I rise;
      you perceive my thoughts from afar. - Psalm 139:1-2 NIV

  6 When they arrived, Samuel saw Eliab and thought, “Surely the Lord’s anointed stands here before the Lord.”
  7 But the Lord said to Samuel, “Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The Lord does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.” - 1 Samuel 16:6-7 NIV

As far as I am aware, the Bible does not offer any encouragement towards the idea that we can hide any of our thoughts from God. The only concept that comes close to my knowledge is God's promise that when we confess and repent of our sins, that He will no longer 'remember' them (cf. Isaiah 43:25), but I believe this is used idiomatically to mean He will no longer account them rather than a literal forgetting and in any event is on a substantially different track than what you are looking for.

1. The implication is that God knows our (hidden - perhaps even from us) motives when we pray.


Are there any surviving (English translated) works by Athanasius about the Apollinarian heresy? As I've looked around the internet at reactions to Athanasius' magnum opus On the Incarnation, I've seen some accusations of latent Apollinarism. The work was published before the Apollinarian heresy was formally defined and condemned, but they say that it was materially there in his writings. That's just background, it's not what my question is about. You need not defend his orthodoxy to me.

Before the heresy was condemned at the ecumenical First Council of Constantinople, it was condemned at a local council in Alexandria headed by none other than Athanasius. So clearly Athanasius was as opposed to this heresy as he had famously been opposed to Arianism. But are there any surviving writings I can read where he lays out the case against Apollinarism?

According to Schaff's history, Athanasius wrote Against Apollinaris

  about the year 372 against Apollinarianism in the wider sense, without naming, Apollinaris or his followers; so that the title above given is wanting in the oldest codices. Similar errors, though in like manner without direct reference to Apollinaris, and evading his most important tenet, were combated by Athanasius in the Epist. ad Epictetum episcopum Corinthi contra haereticos

I can't find an English translation of this work - although Schaff refers to it, it isn't in his complete works of Athanasius. If it's any use to you, the Greek text is here.

The letter to Epictetus is found in translation here.


What is the Biblical basis for it being wrong for couples to live together “chastely” before marriage? Many Christians say that a couple shouldn't live together before they get married, even if they are not having sex with each other.

What is the Biblical basis for this position? Are there certain passages of Scripture that speak against it? Or are there aspects of Church tradition that speaks against it? Or is there something else that has prompted Christians to view this as wrong?

From your comments you are asking strictly about members of the opposite sex who live in the same house, without any kind of sexual relations.

There is, as far as I know, no absolute prohibition on this. In fact I have known several Christians who have shared houses with members of the opposite sex and nobody has objected in any way. However I do understand your claim that Christians do sometimes object to this. Here are some reasons:

They don't believe it. The church doing the objecting probably thinks the pair are having sex, they are just not being open about it. If the people sharing the house are in a romantic relationship, this skepticism is pretty understandable.
It's laying yourself open to temptation Having someone of the opposite sex 'available' and in a situation where nobody would know if you slept together is heightening the possibility that you might 'slip up'. If you are attracted to the other person that counts double, and if you are in a romantic relationship with them, even more so.
It's damaging your reputation and hence Jesus'. Even if you are living completely chastely, and fellow-Christians believe that, it's extremely unlikely that the rest of the world will believe it. Therefore they will see it as a case of Christians being hypocritical.

Different churches would have different takes on this. I certainly know some that would have have no problem with it, and some that would have a big problem.


Did Jesus know how to read and write? Is there any biblical evidence that suggests Jesus read or wrote anything, and was he literate?

Jesus read Isaiah 61 in a synagogue:

  Luke 4:16-22 (ESV)
  16  And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up. And as was his custom, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and he stood up to read. 17  And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written,   ...
  20  And he rolled up the scroll and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. 21  And he began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” 22  And all spoke well of him and marveled at the gracious words that were coming from his mouth. And they said, “Is not this Joseph's son?”

Jesus wrote on the ground:

  John 8:6-8 (ESV)
  6  This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7  And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8  And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground.

In addition to the direct implications of these, we have less direct but still strong evidence in events such as his delivery of the Sermon on the Mount. (Matthew 5-7). Also, if you are a Christian, you believe he co-authored the entire Bible (Hebrews 1:1-2).


Have different Popes ever contradicted each other? I understand that Roman Catholics do not think that everything the Pope says or does is infallible. However, has a sitting Pope ever revoked or contradicted an infallible statement made by a previous Pope?

You have asked specifically on an infallible statement, so the answer is NO. That is in the matters of Faith and morals which applies to the universal church, they have not contradicted each other.

But on other issues like when they make disciplinary and administrative decisions they have. For example, Pope Clement XIV suppressed the Jesuits in 1773, but Pope Pius VII favored them again in 1814.

Just to make it clear, it is important to keep in mind what Catholics mean by papal infallibility. It is a protection of the Holy Spirit which will not allow the pope to teach (as defined dogma) error in matters of faith and morals. Infallibility does not mean the pope receives private revelations. Nor does it include the private opinions of the pope, nor his teachings before he became pope--it is not retroactive. It does not mean he will say the right things at the right times, or lead a holy life. Papal infallibility does not extend to physics, algebra, or the outcome of sporting events.

Also it is to be noted that in the Catholic Church Church doctrines, disciplines, customs, and devotions each have different parts to play. In these Doctrines do not have to be formally defined by Church councils or popes to be part of the dogmatic teaching of the Church. But only when doctrines of the Church are challenged they are formally defined as dogmas by Popes.


Do all Christian traditions expect a second coming of Christ? My background is mostly in Evangelicalism and premillenialism. I am aware of other "Churches" (Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, cults, etc.) and other eschatological frameworks (amillenial, postmillenial, etc.), but I don't know much about them.

Here I am just wondering if a second coming of Christ is one of the points that is agreed upon by all of the major Christian traditions, or if there are specific traditions which do not anticipate His return.

I am only looking for a "yes" or "no" with some evidence from the major relevant traditions.

Yes.  Every significant Christian tradition affirms the return of Jesus.

The Nicene Creed, adopted by the Universal manifestation of the assembled church in 325AD and accepted by just about every mainline Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox church with which the average Westerner will most readily identify affirms:

  He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end.

This is about as direct a reference as one can get- and it is pretty explicit.

Of the non-Nicene denominations (Mormons, Jehovah's Witness, Christadelphians, etc...) all of the major ones also see Jesus' return as a given. It is clear in Scripture, and thus the only denominations that are even on the fence about it are those which do not believe the Bible to be a relevant source of theology.

This would include Unitarians and that bugaboo of this site, Christian Atheists. (If you haven't heard of the latter, don't worry, Id never heard of them either)

In practice, some liberal theologians, like John Dominac Crossan and Bishop John Shelby Spong do not believe in a literal return of Christ (they are 100% amilennial), but then again, they don't believe in a literal resurrection either.

Finally, it should be noted that without an actual return of Jesus, salvation itself becomes a past tense thing- and could (should?) be viewed as reneging on a promise. When Jesus says he goes to prepare a place for us, then if he doesn't ever come back for us, it's a rather hollow promise.


Where to find the up to date catholic missals for each languages? I was able to find a latin missal (cf. MISSALE
ROMANUM, from 1962), but what I would like to find are translations in other languages (and the more recent "editio typica tertia"). I guess those should be all available on the vatican website, but where?

I am specifically interested in the Korean translation, as I am currently living there and it would help a lot in following the mass and learning the language.

Ideally, it would be best if I could find those in an editable format, so I can merge Latin and Korean in one pdf or ebook.

Edit : I found the Latin editio typica tertia on archive.org here. It is 1220 pages and it looks like the real deal. Maybe someone more knowledgeable can confirm?
This is the kind of edition I would like to find in other languages...

A search for the Missale Romanum on the Vatican website reveals that it is apparently unavailable, though the General Instruction for the Roman Missal seems to be available in multiple languages. This is in line with the English translation of the Roman Missal, which is unavailable on the websites of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops or the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales. It's not clear whether this is for copyright reasons or for some other reason.

According to the Union of Catholic Asian News, the Catholic Bishops' Conference of Korea has decided only within the last several weeks to authorize a translation based on the editio typica tertia. This decision does not seem to appear on the bishops' conference website.

If your parish pastor is unable to help you find a missal, perhaps you could check with the Bishops' Conference.


What are the differences/connections between the Churches of Christ and the Congregational Churches? I have done a fair amount of research but am still very confused about the difference between the two, the Churches of Christ and the Congregational Churches.  I know of the United Church and Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, but that is not what I am referring to with the Churches of Christ.  Are they the same thing? Are they different? In what way are they different? If anyone has any knowledge regarding this, please share. Thank you very much!

Congregationalist churches are of the Protestant Reformed tradition, and go way back to the English Civil War when the King tried to gain control over the governance of the Church.  Back in the mid 1600’s, Puritans resisted the influence of the Church of England and broke away.  By the early 1800’s, the Congregational Church had established itself in America with its own form of governance, with a strong emphasis on the autonomy of the local church, and tolerance of doctrinal variations.  In 1957, the Evangelical Reformed Church merged with the Congregational Christian Churches to become the United Church of Christ.  The Conservative Congregational Christian Conference was formed in 1948 in opposition to the liberal theology making inroads in other Congregational churches.  Then, in 1955, the National Association of Congregational Christian Churches was formed.

More information on the history of Congregationalism here: https://www.gotquestions.org/congregationalism.html

The Churches of Christ came out of the Restoration Movement:

  The Restoration Movement began in the early 19th century...  Among the most influential leaders of this movement were Alexander Campbell and Barton W. Stone.  Although the fundamental views remained, in 1906 this group split. The followers of Campbell and Stone divided into two sects, called the Church of Christ (Non-Instrumental) and the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). Over time many additional schisms have formed from these core groups as well. Currently there are three major and several minor groups who trace their roots back to the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement: the Christian Churches/Disciples of Christ, Churches of Christ, Independent Christian Churches, Churches of Christ in Australia, Associated Churches of Christ (New Zealand), United Reformed Church (UK), and others...  Although a key principle of the Restoration Movement is concern for Christian unity, the history of the movement is itself riddled with numerous splits, re-splits and schisms.  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/Restoration-movement.html

Perhaps the most significant difference between the beliefs of Congregationalists and the Churches of Christ is the view of the latter that baptism by full water immersion (for consenting adults only) is a requirement for salvation. Equally worrying is the view that a person must continue to strive to maintain their salvation by doing works.  Insisting that the use of music in worship is unbiblical almost certainly won’t affect anybody’s salvation, but it should be of concern that any religious group would be so dogmatic.  Even the Free Church of Scotland has now conceded on that one!  The article in the link below came to this conclusion:

  Many Church of Christ churches are in fact solid, biblically based churches. There are many Church of Christ churches which declare the true Gospel of salvation by faith alone, through grace alone, in Christ alone. At the same time, with an extreme over-emphasis on the absence of musical instruments, with a claim of exclusive access to salvation, and with a doctrine of salvation that is borderline (at best) works-based, there are other Church of Christ churches that should definitely not be attended / participated in. This requires discernment on the part of a believer considering joining a Church of Christ church. The answer to the question depends entirely on which type of Church of Christ church it is.  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/Church-of-Christ.html

I hope this information will help you in your research into the differences and connections between the two groups.


What was the earliest reference to the 3 States of the Church? The Churches Militant, Penitent and Triumphant are used quite regularly not only in The Catholic Church but also in some Protestant denominations.  The Catechism has a reference to the three states of the Church in paragraph 934.  I'm interested in the earliest uses of the term.  Even in part, as the for example, the use of the Church as Christ's militant.

Valid answer will be the oldest verified use of one or more of the terms.

ALL TOGETHER NOW

  The mediaeval schoolmen distinguished three stages in the catholic church as to its locality,—the militant church on earth (ecclesia militans), the church of the departed or the sleeping church in purgatory (ecclesia dormiens), and the triumphant church in heaven (ecclesia triumphans). This classification was retained by Wiclif [1330-1384], Hus [1369-1415], and other forerunners of Protestantism; but the Reformers rejected the intervening purgatorial church, together with prayers for the departed, and included all the pious dead in the church triumphant. History of the Christian Church, Volume VII. Modern Christianity. The German Reformation

TERMS USED ALONE or PARTLY TOGETHER PREVIOUSLY

MILITANT

Cyprian [210-258] to Cornelius

  Think you, brother, that their wickednesses against God are trifling, their sins small and moderate—since by their means the majesty of an angry God is not besought, since the anger and the fire and the day of the Lord is not feared—since, when Antichrist is at hand the faith of the militant people is disarmed by the taking away of the power of Christ and His fear? - Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Caius, Novatian - Epistle LIV

PENITENT

Canons of the African Church [about 400 CE plus or minus 20 years]

  Canon XLIII.  (Greek xlvi.)

Concerning penitents.

That to penitents the times of their penance shall be assigned by the will of the bishop according to the difference of their sins; and that a presbyter shall not reconcile a penitent without consulting the bishop, unless the absence of the bishop urges him necessarily thereto.  But when of any penitent the offence has been public and commonly known, so as to have scandalized the whole Church, he shall receive imposition of the hand before the altar (Lat. “before the apse”). - The Seven Ecumenical Councils -Canon XLII

TRIUMPHANT

Aquinas [1225-1274]

  Objection 4: Again, it would seem that the greatest aureole is due to doctors. Because the Church militant is modelled after the Church triumphant. Now in the Church militant the greatest honor is due to doctors (1 Tim. 5:17): "Let the priests that rule well be esteemed worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in the word and doctrine." Therefore a greater aureole is due to them in the Church triumphant. - Summa Theologica


Are there examples of "successful" celibate homosexuals, according to the Catholic Church? The Catholic Church puts forward to the laity the example of many many saints, in their different dimensions (charity, chastity, prayer, sacrifice, etc), as inspiration to our own lives and challenges.

Relatedly, the Catholic Church asks homosexuals to be celibate, so as not to commit sin contra natura (and, given the more recent sexual abuse scandals, partly involving homosexual priests, the Church is more vocal against those who see the religious life merely as an alternative to an active homosexual life).

Are there examples of openly homosexual Christians who have taken the suggestion of the Church and "successfully" lived a celibate and fruitful Christian life, examples that the Church has put forward to others to imitate?

It is common to get into trouble when defending the position of the Church, not the least because it is considered unreasonable by non-Catholics. Yet, the existence of examples could help to "defend" better such position, in my view.

PS: the stress on "examples that the Church has put forward" is important here. It is not enough that others beside the Church (e.g. the "LGBT lobby") state that a given saint was homosexual (here?). What matters is that the Church takes a stance on this. Hence the "according to the Catholic Church" qualification.

I'm sure there are tons of examples, but if you want one notable one, there's Andy Warhol, who the Catholic Herald did a write-up about a few years ago:

Religion kept Warhol from going over the brink. He attended Mass almost daily. Other days he would just slip into St Vincent Ferrer on Lexington Avenue, drop into the back pew and pray. He spent his Thanksgivings, Christmases and Easters volunteering at a soup kitchen, and befriended the homeless and poor whom he served. He put his nephew through seminary. Though openly gay, he endeavoured to remain celibate throughout his life. When he refused to support the gay rights movement, many of his friends blamed his faith.
He lived with his mother until she died, and every morning they would pray together in Old Slavonic before he left for the Factory. He always carried a rosary and a small missal in his pocket.

Lifesitenews occasionally publishes articles from people with homosexual desires who don't act on them.  The whole point of chastity is to live according to your conscience, not follow your passions - it's how we were intended to live whether you're married, single - gay or straight.

“To love is to will the good of another.” All other affections have their source in this first movement of the human heart toward the good. Only the good can be loved. Passions “are evil if love is evil and good if it is good.”
CCC 1766


Did Thomas Pearne do anything other than contradict Granville Sharp? Granville Sharp (1735 - 1813) see Wikipedia is famous for his stoical labours in eradicating slavery and for his energetic achievement in re-patriating former slaves to Sierra Leone. Although he has a memorial in Westminster Abbey, I would suggest that he also well deserves a statue to himself in Bristol. (And I am informed that there is now a vacant space for one in that city).
Above and beyond such admirable exploits, Granville Sharp found the time and the energy to write numerous books on Christian matters, notably his studiously researched book on the Greek article and how an understanding of its use is necessary to properly appreciate passages of the bible that refer to the Deity of Jesus Christ.
His findings on the subject are commonly called Sharp's Rule.
This labour of love was fiercely opposed by one Thomas Pearne who deliberately hid behind the pseudonym 'Gregory Blunt' - an obvious mockery of the name of the noble Granville Sharp.
I have been attempting to research Thomas Pearne and I would have liked to make a link to Wikipedia, but I cannot find anything to link to. In fact I can find nothing - anywhere - about Thomas Pearne. He appears (to me, at the present time) to have left no footprint on earth other than in the guise of 'Gregory Blunt' and his adversarial writings against the good Granville.
Can anyone point me in the direction of any worthy achievements or any documents worth reading, other than the contradictory communications made against Sharp, under the blunt pseudonym, which caused the good Granville to have to laboriously answer, publicly, on the behalf of his own researched findings ?

EDIT : See @Lesley 's comment below which indicates at least six letters were sent to Granville Sharp by Thomas Pearne, under the pseudonym 'Gregory Blunt', every single one of them being adversarial.

Thomas Pearne, of Peterhouse, Cambridge, was also a Shakespeare critic.

  The article explores the criticism of William Shakespeare by Thomas Pearne in his book review of "Shakespeare," edited by Issac Reed and published in 1785. The review was originally serialized in the 1786 British periodical the "Monthly Review." The author compares Pearne's comments with the editorial glosses which appear in the 1974 edition of "The Riverside Shakespeare."
  Source: http://pdc-connection.ebscohost.com/c/literary-criticism/34685030/thomas-pearne-peterhouse-cambridge-shakespeare-critic

It seems that Gregory Blunt is the pseudonym of Thomas Pearne:

  Gregory Blunt: Pseudonym of Thomas Pearne, of Peterhouse, Cambridge (c. 1753-1827)  B.A.  1777, M.A. 1780, Fellow at Cambridge and a good classical scholar.  Author of “Six More Letters to Granville Sharp, Esq., on his Remarks upon the Uses of the Article in the Greek Testament. London: J. Johnston, 1803”  Address: https://drgregoryblunt.wordpress.com/
  Source: https://independent.academia.edu/BluntGregory

Whether the work of Thomas Pearne (with regard to Shakespeare) is considered worthy, I could not say.  That academic stuff is out of my league and well above my pay grade.


Other claimants to throne of David besides Jesus? Since Jesus was in the royal line, it seems likely he had contemporaries in the royal line also. Is it possible to estimate how many legitimate candidates for King of Israel lived at the time of Jesus, based on genealogies? Do we have any historical record of such people?

None of the seed of David, through Jeconiah, could ever inherit the throne of David due to the curse upon Jeconiah recorded by the prophet Jeremiah.
Jeremiah states of Jeconiah, king of Judah :

Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.      [Jeremiah 22:30 KJV]

Of this curse upon not only Jeconiah himself but on the succession of any king to the throne who was of that seed, Matthew Henry's commentary records the following :

Now that which is here to be taken notice of is that Jeconiah is written childless (v. 30), that is, as it follows, No man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David. In him the line of David was extinct as a royal line

Biblehub - Jeremiah
Thus only Jesus, the child of Mary (and the child of Mary's husband Joseph) who, alone, inherited all the rights to the throne from Joseph, but inherited none of the curse, being not of the seed of Jeconiah by natural generation.
Ellicott also comments :

The meaning of the prediction, as explained by the latter clause of the verse, was fulfilled in Jeconiah’s being the last kingly representative of the house of David, his uncle Zedekiah, who succeeded him, perishing before him (Jeremiah 52:31). In him the sceptre departed, and not even Zerubbabel sat upon the throne of Judah.

Biblehub - Ellicott