Heart, Mind, Soul and Spirit Is there a diagrammatic representation of soul, spirit, heart and their components based on the tripartite view of man? I understand there can be overlapping but I'd like to know if there is a visual representation (may be like set diagram) that relates 'heart' to the other components. Similarly, what other pieces can fit the description of heart and how do they exist in the context of spirit and soul?

According to the tripartite perspective, when the scripture says 'heart' does it include the whole spirit and soul? Or does it include some parts of spirit and soul? For example, in verses such as Matt 15: 19, Mark 7:21, and Heb 4:12, thoughts (generally related to 'soul') are also part of 'heart'.

A sample of the sort of think I'm looking for:

Your question contains a small irony. Each component in your quartet (viz., soul, spirit, and heart) is invisible, and you are asking for a diagrammatic representation! (My observation is just an aside.)

If, however, I were to diagram your three highly abstract words, I'd probably draw a heart; you know, the typical Valentine's Day heart, which is probably recognized universally (at least in literate cultures) as a symbol for heart. I'd then draw a straight line down the middle of the heart, from the indented part at the top, to the rounded part, below. I'll explain the diagram later in my answer.

HEART

Let's start with the word heart. The word heart, of course, can be defined both literally and figuratively, with a good deal of overlap between the two, since with virtually all metaphors, separating the figurative from the literal is very tricky indeed! Allow me to ensconce the word heart in a sentence, which I'll use as a springboard for this section of my answer. If I am correct, the word, as ensconced, will have, potentially, great heuristic value.

  "I can just tell that Jim's heart isn't in the project."

So let's say Jim works in the R & D Department of the ACME Mousetrap Company. His department has been charged with "building a better mousetrap," and Jim is heading up the project. Jim has an assistant working with him as liaison between him and all the department heads within the company. The above quotation came from Jim's assistant.

How and why, do you think, Jim's assistant arrived at the conclusion which I've summarized in the words, "I can just tell that Jim's heart isn't in the project"?

If you suggest that the assistant says that Jim

  complains to his assistant how stupid he thinks the project is,
  fails to meet the various deadlines associated with each stage in the project,
  starts delegating too much responsibility to his assistant,
  comes in late to work, takes extra-long lunch breaks, and
  is in the process of revising his resume,

then you'd be spot on regarding the why of my question. The assistant is saying:

  "Jim shows a lack of enthusiasm for the project. Period."

In other words, when someone does not put his or heart into a project, he or she will evince a lack of enthusiasm in attitude. Nonverbal clues alone will clue everyone in that Jim is not a happy camper!

In summary up to this point, then, HEART is revealed in at least some of the following:

  single-minded commitment
  keen interest and focus
  evident enthusiasm and passion

Put differently, your heart involves your entire person--intellect, emotion, and will (or spirit, soul, and body).

A song I heard when I was a kid had a simple title: "Heart," by Van Buren. It's from the Broadway musical, "Damn Yankees!" Its lyrics are as follows:

  HEART (by Van Buren)

  You've gotta have heart

  All you really need is heart

  When the odds are sayin' you'll never win

  That's when the grin should start

  You've gotta have hope

  Mustn't sit around and mope

  Nothin's half as bad as it may appear

  Wait'll next year and hope

  When your luck is battin' zero

  Get your chin up off the floor

  Mister you can be a hero

  You can open any door, there's nothin' to it but to do it

  You've gotta have heart

  Miles 'n miles n' miles of heart

  Oh, it's fine to be a genius of course

  But keep that old horse

  Before the cart

  First you've gotta have heart

The apostle Paul referred to the heart in the following way:

  "and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us (Romans 5:5 NAS).

No wonder the world (in the Johannine sense, as in 1 John chapter 2) links the romantic aspect of heart with the word love!  And rightly it should, minus the worldly aspects of course!

The Scripture, on the other hand, while not unaware of the importance and significance of romantic matters of the heart, emphasizes the function of the heart as the seat of emotions, generally. Paul admonishes us in his letter to the Colossian Christians,

  "Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth" (Colossians 3:2 KJV).

Again, to set one's affection on "things above" requires a commitment of the entire person: intellect, emotion, and will.

SPIRIT

Spirit can frequently substitute for heart, as in

  "I can just tell that Jim is dis-spirited about having to head up the project."

In biblical terms, however, when we think of spirit, we need to think of the God-awareness in each of us, particularly Christians.

Upon being born again, the Christian's spirit became united and indissolubly linked to God's Spirit in an eternal bond. This linkage or union does not automatically result in God-focused, God-honoring, God-pleasing behavior on our part, however. Otherwise, Paul would not have had to say to the Romans,

  "For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot  please God. However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit . . ." (8:6-9a NASB).

I suggest that in these verses Paul equates spirit with mind, even though he does not use the word spirit with a lowercase S. Christians relate to the Spirit--with an uppercase S--with our spirit--with a lowercase S. Furthermore, mind and spirit are two words which frequently denote the same thing; namely, the symbol-mediated (i.e., language-mediated) thought process which fills virtually every waking (and perhaps sleeping) moment of our lives.

That process can be both inner-directed and outer-directed, as we relate to ourselves intra-personally, and to others interpersonally, whether in the silence of our word-mediated thoughts or in verbal and/or nonverbal (including sign language) exchanges with others. When that thought process is directed heavenward, as it were, and toward God, we engage our spirits in communication with the Almighty, through our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Helping that process "stay on track," so to speak, is God's word, which is living and active in our lives,

  ". . . sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart" (Hebrews 4:12 NASB, my emphasis).

SOUL

Interestingly, the writer to the Hebrews tells us God's word targets the division between soul and spirit. Why?

I suggest that soul is that part of the inward process I described above which starts as primarily self-directed and self-motivated thought or ideation, and then is externalized and primarily conscious behavior: I think, therefore I am, therefore I act.

God needs to separate soul from spirit in us because our soul is by nature--the "old nature," that is--self-centered and selfish. True, there is no way for us not to be self-centered in the sense that it is not possible to cease beings ourselves and start living as someone else. Even if we could, we would still be living a self-centered life, but as that other person. As the preacher once said, God doesn't create duplicates, only originals. Even as we begin to grasp the meaning of Paul's words in Galatians 2:20,

  "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me,"

we realize Christ does not desire to take over our identity, personality, and temperament; rather, he wants these things to take on the character of Jesus, and to do so in His strength, not ours.

So the Bible condemns a selfish life and selfish behavior. It labels them as "the flesh" (not "the flesh" as Paul used it in Galatians 2:20, above, where he means "my body").  The Bible enumerates the  "works of the flesh" in Galatians chapter 5:

  "Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery,  fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders,  drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God" (vv.19-21).

Jesus gave us a similar list in Matthew chapter 15 and Mark 7, which I've conflated as follows:

  "'But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, murders, adultery, greed, theft, malice, false testimony, slander, lewdness, envy, deceit, arrogance, and folly'" (v.19 and vv.21-22, respectively, NIV).

Neither Jesus nor anyone else in the Scripture condemned the human body as being somehow evil. Obviously, the body can be a vehicle for "flesh," but it need not be. Just as a married couple can use their bodies within the marriage covenant to give one another sexual pleasure, so also can that same couple experience sexual pleasure in adulterous affairs. The former use is sanctioned and encouraged by God; the latter is proscribed and condemned. Hebrews tells us,

  "Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge" (13:4 NAS).

Come up with the "opposites" of each item in the lists I've quoted above, and you'll get an idea of how God wants us to think and behave in God-honoring ways. Using only Jesus' list in this way, we can turn

  evil thoughts into thoughts about what is true, honest, just, pure, lovely, of a good report, virtuous, and praiseworthy (Philippians 4:8 KJV)
  sexual immorality, adultery, and lewdness are into sexual morality, fidelity, purity, and modesty
  murderous thoughts and actions into life-giving, life-honoring, life nurturing, and life-empowering thoughts and actions
  envy into generosity
  deceit and false testimony into honesty
  slander into only "good reports" and edifying comments to and about other people
  arrogance into humility, and
  folly into wisdom

By doing all the above (and the list is only partial), as the Spirit takes God's word and applies it to the soul-ish, self-conscious part of us, we are sanctified progressively as our minds and behavior patterns are transformed (see Romans 12:2). The result is an increased conformity to the image of Christ (see Romans 8:29).

CONCLUSION

Back to my diagram. If I were more computer savvy, I'd cut and paste something as a visual aid for you. Unfortunately, however, I'm not that computer savvy.

In lieu of a visual aid, then, picture a typical, stylized heart, which represents the invisible aspect of personhood, which for our purposes consists of an admixture of spirit and soul. The physical body is, as it were, the agent of, or vehicle for, the spirit and/or soul. In a biblical hierarchy of values, however, the spirit as a sanctified mind must always trump the soul, particularly when the soul wants to use the body, via the mind/body nexus, as a vehicle for gratifying the desires of the flesh.

I suggest that the heart will always be divided. However, as we mature as Christians, becoming increasingly sanctified (or set apart) by God as vessels of honor, our spirits and our souls will increasingly cooperate with each other, so that our self-conscious self becomes increasingly our God-conscious self. As we increasingly submit, yield, and cooperate with God in His plan for our lives, we experience progression and spiritual maturity. Accordingly, the Spirit of God empowers us in the spiritual discipline of

  "Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ . . ." (2 Corinthians 10:5 KJV, my emphasis).


According to Catholicism, can demons force or misguide you into receiving communion? I was listening to Father Rippergers  online sermon about communion. He said, the demons force to receive  communion even when you have not repented. He also said receiving communion if you have not repented will lead to more sin and that's what the demons want. I had believed that you can take communion only when it's the will of God. The holy ghost will guide you and let you receive communion. And Jesus had said " No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day".
There are many children's who take communion, have they repented? Can demons force or misguide you into receiving communion?

No one can force you to sin, including demons, because sin requires free consent of the will.

Addressing "Whether the devil is directly the cause of man's sinning?" (Summa Theologica I-II q. 80 a. 1 co.), St. Thomas Aquinas writes:

  Sin is an action: so that a thing can be directly the cause of sin, in the same way as anyone is directly the cause of an action; and this can only happen by moving that action's proper principle to act. Now the proper principle of a sinful action is the will, since every sin is voluntary. Consequently nothing can be directly the cause of sin, except that which can move the will to act.

and ibid. q. 3 "Whether the devil can induce man to sin of necessity?" co.:

  The devil, by his own power, unless he be restrained by God, can compel anyone to do an act which, in its genus, is a sin; but he cannot bring about the necessity of sinning.

In other words, he cannot force one to choose to sin. He can, however, make sinning appealing so that one voluntarily chooses to sin.


According to Catholicism, why did God lower Himself so much for the specks of dust like us? St. Paul said, "It is through suffering that we find strength."

St. Augustine said, "My heart is restless until I find abode in You."

And not only that God wanted to feel how humans feel the love with their senses so much that He emptied Himself so He can understand that.

But most humans were not like that.

So why did God lower Himself so much for the specks of dust like us?

Philippians 2:2-8 (DRB)
Fulfil ye my joy, that you may be of one mind, having the same charity, being of one accord, agreeing in sentiment. 3 Let nothing be done through contention, neither by vain glory: but in humility, let each esteem others better than themselves: 4 Each one not considering the things that are his own, but those that are other men's.
5 For let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man. 8 He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross.

Being perfect love itself, He couldn't let humanity perish eternally if there was a way to prevent it, and so He humbled Himself and took on our nature Himself, to provide us with redemption from said inevitable, just fate. Pride not being found in Him at all, He humbled Himself for the sake of love.

John 15:13 (DRB)
Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
Mark 10:45 (DRB)
For the Son of man also is not come to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a redemption for many.

He loved us so much, seeing in us what we cannot always see, namely, His image in our soul (the image made to reflect the glory of its Maker, not perish), that He wanted if necessary to lay down His life to save us—something not possible in His divine nature, for which reason He elected to become the new Adam.

1 Corithians 15:21-22 (DRB)
For by a man came death, and by a man the resurrection of the dead. And as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive.


What is Baptism of the Holy Spirit? What is the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, and how does it differ from water baptism?  Do all Christians experience Baptism of the Holy Spirit?

EDIT

A few references to Baptisim of the Holy Spirit, or similar phrases, in scripture:

"He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit" -- Matthew 3:11, Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16
"one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit" -- John 1:33
"you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit" -- Acts 1:5, Acts 11:16

Baptism of the Holy Spirit refers to receiving the Holy Spirit into your life.

In John 14:16-17 (NIV), Jesus says:

  16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to
  help you and be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth. The world
  cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you
  know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.

Later, after Jesus had ascended into heaven, the Holy Spirit came to the apostles at the feast of Pentecost.  The entire story is Acts 2, but specifically

Acts 2:2-3

  2 Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven
  and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 They saw what
  seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each
  of them.

That is the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.

It's the Holy Spirit coming and filling us.  Once he enters our lives, we are forever changed. We have access to the Holy of Holies and have direct communion with God.


How does fasting affect violent situations not under my control? I read an article yesterday about Pope Francis announcing a day of fasting on Sept. 7th for the situation in Syria. According to Catholic/Orthodox/Anglican doctrine, exactly how does my fasting affect violent situations in the middle East?

Our own wickedness is the cause of the wickedness around the world. Personal fasting is a sign of personal repentance that, it is hoped, will lead God to mitigate similar evils in the world.

Pope Francis said this:

“We will gather in prayer and in a spirit of penance, invoking God’s great gift of peace upon the beloved nation of Syria and upon each situation of conflict and violence around the world. Humanity needs to see these gestures of peace and to hear words of hope and peace.”

The full text of his September 1st Angelus Address can be found here.
In making this proclamataion, he joins thousands of others in explicitly seeing the fallen condition of the world not merely a result of some generic sin, but our sin.  In calling us to fast, he is calling us to repent of our part in making this world a fallen place.
During the American Civil War, Abraham Lincoln called us to a similar fast.  He asked the nation to "fast and humble" itself as an outward manifestation of our repentance.  The full text can be seen here.  Within that, he wrote a justification as follows:

And, insomuch as we know that, by His divine law, nations like individuals are subjected to punishments and chastisements in this world, may we not justly fear that the awful calamity of civil war, which now desolates the land, may be but a punishment, inflicted upon us, for our presumptuous sins, to the needful end of our national reformation as a whole People? We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven. We have been preserved, these many years, in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth and power, as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us!
It behooves us then, to humble ourselves before the offended Power, to confess our national sins, and to pray for clemency and forgiveness.

In a nutshell - God is punishing us by bringing these events to come to pass.  Maybe if we show our contrition for what we have done, God will relent.
The idea is both simple and has a long basis in history.
Indeed, Paul, in Romans acknowledges the link, in Romans 1:

28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice.

The people of Nineveh, when confronted by Jonah (in Chapter 3), made almost the exact same leap:

6 When Jonah’s warning reached the king of Nineveh, he rose from his throne, took off his royal robes, covered himself with sackcloth and sat down in the dust. 7 This is the proclamation he issued in Nineveh:
“By the decree of the king and his nobles:
Do not let people or animals, herds or flocks, taste anything; do not let them eat or drink. 8 But let people and animals be covered with sackcloth. Let everyone call urgently on God. Let them give up their evil ways and their violence. 9 Who knows? God may yet relent and with compassion turn from his fierce anger so that we will not perish.”
10 When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he relented and did not bring on them the destruction he had threatened.

The logic is simple:

Violence is a result of our wickedness
We are sorry for this
Perhaps if God sees our sorrow, he will relent, and change the situation.


Did Luke provide other writings under a different name? Luke was considered to be a prolific writer, but I cannnot find any other information on this aspect of his life.

Luke's Gospel and Acts of the Apostles were originally anonymous until attributed to Paul's companion Luke, later in the second century. The author never claims to be Luke, but Irenaeus appears to have been the first to make that attribution.

As we do not know who really wrote Luke-Acts, we need not be surprised that we do not know any other books written by the same author. However, the author's skills in Greek rhetoric were not learnt overnight, so he must have written other works before undertaking these masterpieces. Perhaps one day, stylistic analysis of other extant late first-century or early second-century books could help identify previous works that might have been written by 'Luke', but that is a distant possibility at best.


Do preterists who profess the two-age model believe that Jesus is still with us? Many preterists (full or partial) hold to the two-age model of eschatology (the Jewish age ended in 70 A.D., ushering in the Gentile age). How do preterists reconcile this perspective with Jesus' promise in Matthew 28:20 that He will be with Christians "all the days until the completion of the age" (literal translation). Does that mean that Jesus is no longer with us since the age to which He was referring has ended from a preterist perspective?

Not necessarily. Technically one could take the two-age model literally where one age would end in 70 (and thus Jesus would no longer be with us), but most who hold to this believe that the ages overlap. So Jesus was talking about the present age that overlaps the former age when he said it. Thus he will be with us to the end of the current age, which overlapped the former age.


How were people saved prior to 33 AD? The exact date isn't important but at some point about 2000 years ago Christ died on a cross. Since that point Christians everywhere have put their faith in Him. He claimed to be the Way, the Truth and the Life and that nobody could get to the Father except through faith in Him (John 14:6).
That's great for everybody since then, but how were people saved before that? There are many more years of history before that date than after. Was there a different savior for them? Did they just believe in God but not in Jesus?
In very broad strokes, what does Christianity say on this matter (general doctrine) and more specifically, are there differing views on this held by major branches of Christianity? If so, what is a summary of the different doctrinal positions?

Before Christ, people were saved by believing in God's promise of the Messiah who was to come, as we are saved by believing in the Messiah who has come.

Hebrews 11:39-40 (ESV)

  And all these [Old Testament saints], though commended through their
  faith, did not receive what was promised, since God had provided
  something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made
  perfect.

There is some speculation that because Jesus is the only way to the Father, OT saints were kept in a comfortable "holding place" (cf. Abraham's bosom in the parable of the rich man), and that when Jesus died he joined them and brought them with him to heaven

Eph. 4:7-10 (ESV)

  But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of
  Christ’s gift. Therefore it says, "When he ascended on high he led a host of captives,    and he
  gave gifts to men."

  (In saying, "He ascended," what does it mean but that he had also
  descended into the lower regions, the earth? He who descended is the
  one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill
  all things.)


C.S. Lewis Reference: True Myths DJClayworth answered a question about the meaning of C.S. Lewis description of Christianity as a "true myth." What Lewis text uses the "true myth" terminology?

A quick Google search produced this:

  Now the story of Christ is simply a true myth: a myth working on us the same way as the others, but with this tremendous difference that it really happened: and one must be content to accept it in the same way, remembering that it is God’s myth where the others are men’s myths: i.e., the Pagan stories are God expressing Himself through the minds of poets, using such images as He found there, while Christianity is God expressing Himself through what we call 'real things'. (goodreads quote)

More searching revealed that this is possibly from C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity, but I was not able to find where. I am currently looking through the physical copy I have to find it and will update this answer once I do.

Edit: I found this letter, written by C.S. Lewis and addressed to Arthur Greeves on the subject of "the Myth of Christianity". The passage I quoted above is the first sentence of the third paragraph in the letter.


If every stone of the temple was thrown down how is the Wailing Wall still standing? Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.” (Matthew 24:1-2, NIV)

In this verse Jesus foretells the destruction of the Temple. So how do we know what we have been calling the Temple is really the proper location? Matt 24:2 says all thrown down so what about the Wailing Wall? Why was that left standing? Do we have the incorrect location of the Temple?

Refer to..

  “Do you see all these great buildings?” replied Jesus. “Not one stone
  here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”

  Mark 13:2

And,

  “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one
  stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”

  Matthew 24:3

As well as,

  “As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will
  be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down.”

  Luke 21

The reference is to the buildings, those that are "seen".  Specifically and only, this prophecy refers to "seen" "buildings".

The Western Wall (also referred to as the 'Wailing Wall') is actually the retaining wall built as part of Herod's expansion of the temple.  It is...

Not in view from while in the temple area (it's over the wall, and over the cliff)
Not a building.

The prophecy is literally and specifically fulfilled (if you consider the past a fulfillment, not taking into account futurist eschatologies which claim it must be "rebuilt" and "re-torn-down" yet again).

ADDENDUM: There are two parts to the current wall. Going from bottom to top, there are the large blocks that make up the lower section of this wall, which is the retaining wall dating to the Second Temple Period.  This was not part of the prophecy, and not destroyed, as there would have been no need for the Romans to destroy this.  The smaller stones on the top were rebuilt in the years after the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem.  The original wall, visible from the Temple mount, was fully destroyed as foretold.


Are Catholic bishops infallible? I hear that Catholic bishops being considered 'infallible' is untrue and their words can be contested if they are not speaking truths directly from the Bible/other relevent documents. However, even if that myth is not entirely so, to what degree are Catholic Bishops opinion's viewed as infallible (if at all)? Is an ordinary Catholic able to gain 'official' undebatable answers even if that answer isn't in the relevent Catholic readings?

Bishops in themselves are not infallible.  However, they do participate in some way in the infallibility of the Catholic Church.

Catholic Bishops participate in the ordinary and universal episcopal magisterium of the Catholic Church.  This is a fuzzy set of teachings that are infallible, and come from the authority of the Church to teach The Faith.  What exactly are these teachings?  They are the teachings on faith and morals that all the Bishops of the world, including the Pope, universally hold as definitive and true.  Essentially these are all the true doctrines that all Bishops believe and know to be true, but which haven't been declared to be infallible by a Church Council or the Pope because no one has challenged them in any serious way.

To answer your question somewhat: any Catholic lay person can challenge any Bishop in matters of theology and morals.  But most Catholic people will not pay much attention to the challenger because, for the most part, Catholic Bishops are faithful to their calling of teaching the Faith.  Thus, there is a presumption that the Bishop as opposed to the challenger is correct, and the challenger would be mostly ignored.  In principle, if the challenger happens to be right (and the Bishop wrong), and if the dispute/debate were to gain the attention of the faithful in general and of the majority of Bishops (as well as the Pope), and if the Bishops were to start debating the issue in earnest, some agreeing with the challenger, some with the original Bishop, and if the issue raised and/or the debate surrounding it were causing serious disruptions to the life of Faith, then the Pope (or a Church Council) might be needed to clarify the question.  In principle, then, the challenger might actually succeed against the Bishop: not because he is a better debater, but because he was right --- and the fact that his position attracted successful support among the Bishops is the proof of this.

However, for the most part Bishops know the Faith they are teaching.  And for the most part Catholic theologians who disagree with a particular Bishop are actually disagreeing with the majority (if not the unanimity) of Catholic Bishops.  Therefore their dissent goes nowhere.


Was the Athanasian Creed ever translated into Koine Greek? If so, where can I find the text? I am aware that it was most likely originally composed in Latin (this is why it is highly unlikely that St. Athanasius himself wrote it) but has anyone ever tried translating it into Koine Greek?

If so, where would I be able to find the text?

After a lot of searching, I found out that the Athanasian Creed does, in fact, exist in several Koine Greek versions. Here is one version of it:

Όποιος θέλει να σωθεί, είναι αναγκαίο πρώτα απ' όλα, να τηρεί την καθολική(ανοικτή σ' όλους, παγκόσμια, δεν εννοεί την Ρωμαιοκαθολική) πίστη.
Όποιος δεν την διαφυλάξει πλήρη και απαραβίαστη, χωρίς αμφιβολία θα χαθεί αιώνια.
Η καθολική πίστη λοιπόν είναι αυτή: Τιμούμε ένα Θεό εν Τριάδι, και την Τριάδα εν Μονάδι.
Χωρίς να συγχέουμε τα πρόσωπα, χωρίς να διαιρούμε τη Θεία Ουσία.
Γιατί άλλο Πρόσωπο είναι ο Πατέρας, άλλο ο Υιός κι άλλο το Πνεύμα το Άγιο.
Αλλά είναι μία η Θειότητα του Πατρός, και του Υιού, και του Αγίου Πνεύματος, ίση σε δόξα, συναιώνια σε μεγαλοπρέπεια.
Ότι είναι ο Πατέρας, είναι και ο Υιός, και το Άγιο Πνεύμα.
Άκτιστος (αδημιούργητος) ο Πατέρας, άκτιστος ο Υιός, άκτιστο και το Άγιο Πνεύμα.
Άπειρος ο Πατήρ, άπειρος ο Υιός, άπειρο το Άγιο Πνεύμα.
Αιώνιος ο Πατέρας, αιώνιος ο Υιός, αιώνιο το Άγιο Πνεύμα.
Και όμως δεν είναι τρεις αιώνιοι, αλλά ένας αιώνιος.
Όπως δεν είναι τρεις άκτιστοι, ούτε τρεις άπειροι, αλλά ένας άκτιστος και ένας άπειρος.
Παρομοίως, παντοδύναμος είναι ο Πατήρ, παντοδύναμος ο Υιός, παντοδύναμο το Άγιο Πνεύμα.
Και όμως δεν είναι τρεις παντοδύναμοι, αλλά ένας παντοδύναμος.
Έτσι Θεός είναι ο Πατέρας, Θεός ο Υιός, Θεός το Άγιο Πνεύμα.
Και όμως δεν είναι τρεις θεοί, αλλά ένας Θεός.
Έτσι Κύριος είναι ο Πατήρ, Κύριος ο Υιός, Κύριος το Άγιο Πνεύμα.
Και όμως δεν είναι τρεις Κύριοι, αλλά ένας Κύριος.
Γιατί, όπως μας υποχρεώνει η χριστιανική αλήθεια να αναγνωρίζουμε το κάθε Πρόσωπο να είναι Θεός και Κύριος αφ' εαυτού Του.
Έτσι και η καθολική θρησκεία μας απαγορεύει να λέμε ότι υπάρχουν τρεις Θεοί και Κύριοι.
Ο Πατήρ δεν έχει φτιαχτεί από κανέναν: ούτε έχει δημιουργηθεί, ούτε έχει γεννηθεί.
Ο Υιός, είναι μόνο του Πατρός. Δεν είναι κτιστός ούτε δημιουργημένος, αλλά γεννημένος.
Το Άγιο Πνεύμα είναι του Πατρός. Δεν είναι κτιστό ούτε δημιουργημένο, ούτε γεννημένο, αλλά εκπορευόμενο.
Έτσι υπάρχει ένας Πατήρ, όχι τρεις Πατέρες. Ένας Υιός, όχι τρεις Υιοί. Ένα Άγιο Πνεύμα, όχι τρία Άγια Πνεύματα.
Και σ' αυτή την Τριάδα κανείς δεν προηγείται και κανείς δεν έπεται, κανείς δεν είναι μεγαλύτερος ή μικρότερος (από τον άλλο).
Αλλά καθ' ολοκληρία τα τρία πρόσωπα είναι συναιώνια και ίσα μεταξύ τους.
Έτσι ώστε σε όλα τα πράγματα, όπως έχει ειπωθεί παραπάνω, η Μονάδα εν Τριάδι, και η Τριάδα εν Μονάδι πρέπει να λατρεύεται.
Όποιος θέλει να σωθεί, έτσι πρέπει να σκέπτεται για την Τριάδα.
Επιπλέον είναι απαραίτητο για την αιώνια σωτηρία, να πιστεύει σωστά στην ενσάρκωση του Κυρίου μας Ιησού Χριστού.
Γιατί η ορθή πίστη είναι αυτή που πιστεύουμε και ομολογούμε, ότι ο Κύριός μας Ιησούς Χριστός, Υιός του Θεού, είναι Θεός και άνθρωπος.
Είναι Θεός από την ουσία του Πατέρα Του, γεννημένος πριν από τους κόσμους. Και άνθρωπος από την ουσία της μητέρας Του, γεννημένος μέσα στον κόσμο.
Τέλειος Θεός, τέλειος άνθρωπος. Αποτελούμενος από ψυχή λογική και ανθρώπινη σάρκα.
Ίσος με τον Πατέρα όσον αφορά τη Θεότητα. Κατώτερος απ' τον Πατέρα όσον αφορά την ανθρώπινη φύση Του.
Όμως παρότι είναι Θεός και άνθρωπος, δεν είναι δύο, αλλά ένας Χριστός.
Ένας, όχι με μετατροπή της θεότητας σε σάρκα, αλλά με πρόσληψη της ανθρωπότητας από τον Θεό.
Ένας, ολόκληρος, όχι δια της σύγχυσης των ουσιών (της θείας & ανθρώπινης ουσίας), αλλά στην ενότητα του Προσώπου.
Γιατί όπως η λογική ψυχή και η σάρκα κάνουν έναν άνθρωπο, έτσι ο Θεός και ο Άνθρωπος είναι Ένας Χριστός.
που υπέφερε για τη σωτηρία μας. Κατέβηκε στην κόλαση. Την τρίτη μέρα αναστήθηκε από τους νεκρούς.
Ανελήφθη στους ουρανούς, κάθισε εκ δεξιών του Θεού Πατρός του Παντοδύναμου.
Από όπου και θα έρθει να κρίνει ζώντες και νεκρούς.
Στην έλευση του οποίου όλοι οι άνθρωποι θα αναστηθούν με τα σώματά τους
και θα δώσουν λόγο για τα έργα τους.
Κι αυτοί που έχουν έργα καλά, θα μεταβούν σε αιώνια ζωή, κι αυτοί που έχουν έργα κακά, σε αιώνια κόλαση.
Αυτή είναι η καθολική πίστη, την οποία αν δεν πιστεύει κανείς ειλικρινά και σταθερά, δεν μπορεί να σωθεί. Αμήν.

Η Αγία Τριάδα


Should a Christian read books known to be heretical / blasphemous / against Christianity? Inspired by: May Christians read self improvement books?

May we read un-Christian books? Should we?
In what circumstances?
What guidelines should be used to decide on this?

Some examples of books that I consider relevant for the question:

The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins
God is not Great by Christopher Hitchens
The Quran
His Dark Materials by Philip Pullman
Gospel of Judas
The 120 Days of Sodom by Marquis de Sade
The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown
The Satanic Bible by Anton LaVey

I have read some of the mentioned and would not read some. But I can't say what my guidelines would exactly be. Of course, I only know the ones I've read to be heretical/blasphemous/anti-Christian. Others I put on the list based on hearsay.

I'd give a similar answer to this question as I did the other one, except that having read some of these books already, I doubt I could read them now without being nauseated by what I'm reading.

There are certain things that, once you read them, you can't get them out of your head.  (pornography, for example).  I've read some very anti-Christian books and articles (in print and on the web) that sound very good on the surface.  (So again, the same caution I gave in the answer on that question applies.)

That said, some of the books on your list are full of the type of information we need to be armed against.  God calls each of us into a different ministry.  I tend to come across people of a certain mindset - atheists, agnostics, people who have serious and real objections to the very core concepts of Christianity.  In order to talk to these people and reach out to them, it is absolutely essential that I know where they are coming from.  Others (my Pastor, for example) would argue that this stuff isn't important because he tends to run across people who are open and seeking God, rather than those who oppose Him.  He'd probably tell you not to even look at this stuff, and to concentrate on the Word instead.  I guess if I knew less atheists, I might agree.

I just keep going back to the fact that if I hadn't been influenced by people who were educated and prepared for someone like me, I might not have ever been saved.

A while back, I blogged about a book I'd read called "10 Books that Screwed Up the World".  It contains several books not on your list that should be.  I think that if you are one of the people that God has called to reach those that have been corrupted by these teachings, then not only is reading these books OK, it is, in some ways, necessary.

The point is this:  You can't fight the enemy if you don't know the enemy.  the enemy is not the people who hold these beliefs, they are the beliefs themselves.  You can't hope to make a case against an idea if you don't understand the idea.

However, if you're reading these books because you simply enjoy them, I guess I'm not going to tell you you're wrong for doing so, but I know that I, personally, wouldn't be able to do it.  Walking with the Lord means being in agreement with Him, and obviously, you can't be in agreement with Him if you're in agreement with those who stand against him.

One final point that should really be a separate answer

Back to my statement about being nauseated. I figured out how to verbalize it:  I love God, and to read materials that purposely distort Him and cast Him in a negative light make me furious.  I would be just as furious if someone wrote a pornographic story about my wife or children.  It's offensive.  That's why I'd have a hard time reading these books, even if it does help me to be better prepared.


What does the Bible say about giving your life away for Jesus? On a Christian radio station I constantly hear the phrase "to give your life away for Jesus" but they never say what that means.

I am very confused about this concept. Any clarification is helpful, thanks !

The question is a bit vague, and I would be curious as to what verses they were referring to (if any) so I could better answer the question, but I'll take a quick whack at it.

Things were perfect in the garden of Eden. Jesus was the ruler and there was no sin. When Adam and Eve chose to partake of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, they brought sin into the world. Therefore, they lost direct connection to Jesus.

When Jesus died on the cross He once again opened the gateway to God through Jesus (this is the significance of the veil tearing, but that is different story).

God was in control when man was perfect, we gave up that control to ourselves. Jesus knew we couldn't do it on our own so He sent the Holy Spirit to instruct us. The Holy Spirit can't control what happens on the earth unless we, humans, allow it. Jesus will never come against free will. Satan doesn't have that power either, all he can do is trick us into believe wrong things. It is our choice and will always be our choice.

When someone "gives up their life for Jesus", they are asking for Jesus to come and take control of their lives. They are giving up their right to accomplish things on their own strength. Once this surrender happens, Jesus can work in ways unimaginable.

"I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me" - Phil 4:13

To taste that strength, you have to be willing to give up your free will and to give it to Jesus.


Is the Qur'an compatible with Christianity? In comment discussion of another question, these mentions about the Qur'an were made:

  The Qur'an teaches that Christ is a Prophet in Islam. In that sense I wouldn't say it's "Anti-Christian" or even heretical.

  I merely made this distinction because it doesn't directly teach against Christian theology, and some Christians have a similar view to the Qur'an with respect to the divinity of Christ.

I had never before heard of Christians that see the Qur'an as compatible with Christianity. I think this has a lot to do with what doctrines a Christian holds onto. For the purpose of this question, anyone self-identifying as a Christian is a Christian.

What Christian doctrines is the Qur'an incompatible with?
Is the Qur'an generally compatible with Christianity? (i.e. other than being incompatible with the specific doctrines)

No, it is not compatible. The Qur'an explicitly denies the divinity of Christ, which is one of the absolute bedrock tenets of the Christian faith. Without His divinity and associated sinlessness Christ's sacrifice and resurrection would carry no meaning or effect.

One additional note: I ran across this article today and I thought it would round out this answer well. In it the author explains the doctrine of the Trinity and why it matters so much. The fact that Christ was divine and one part of a triune Godhead is critical to Christianity, and as I said the Qur'an denies it outright. A great summary of the Trinity from the article:

  The doctrine of the Trinity can be summarized in seven statements. (1)
  There is only one God. (2) The Father is God. (3) The Son is God. (4)
  The Holy Spirit is God. (5) The Father is not the Son. (6) The Son is
  the not the Holy Spirit. (7) The Holy Spirit is not the Father. All of
  the creedal formulations and theological jargon and philosophical
  apologetics have to do with safeguarding each one of these statements
  and doing so without denying any of the other six.

Without a Trinity there is no Christianity, therein lies the direct conflict with the Qur'an.


Is the feast of 1 Corinthians 5:8 the same feast as 1 Cor 11? Is the feast of 1 Corinthians 5:8 the same feast as 1 Cor 11?

Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. (1 Corinthians 5:8 NKJV)

compared to

For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”
26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.
27 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. 30 For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep. 31 For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.
33 Therefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. 34 But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, lest you come together for judgment. And the rest I will set in order when I come.

Short answer: no

David's comment is correct, the bread referred to in 1 Corinthians 5 is not the bread of the Lord's supper, but the lives of the believers themselves which should be unleavened by immorality (verses 6-8).  Paul extends the metaphor to a feast by including Christ as our Passover lamb (verse 7)


Do Rastafarians believe in Jesus as the Way to God? Do Rastafarians believe that Jesus is the way to God in the same way that Christians believe? I find that their singing speaks a lot about God and spiritual matters.

First of all, I think it's necessary to point out that Christianity is not defined by being a "lot about God and other spiritual matters". Most world religions could include this. You could just as easily be Muslim and sing a lot about a god and spiritual matters.

Even more specifically than that, a group may have a set of beliefs that draw on many common themes from Christianity without being Christian. Such is the case with the Rastafari Movement. It is a philosophy and loosely organized way of life that includes some common themes and often reuses terms and phrases found in Christianity, but at it's core is a completely separate set of beliefs.

To directly answer your question, no Rastafarians do not believe that Jesus is the way to God in the same way that the majority of Christians (of any major tradition) do. In fact they believe the Christian scriptures have been corrupted. Being a loosely organized set of beliefs it is important to note that you might run into a few people who do believe in Jesus and claim to be Rastafarian. However the normative Rastafari beliefs are quite different.

They do not hold the same beliefs about sin, the reasons for our separation from God or the only solution to that problem. They are usually willing to credit Jesus with being a good moral teacher and admire his rebel tendencies, but they completely miss the main point of who he was: God in the flesh and the only incarnate Messiah.

That last bit is important, because they typically do believe in a "christ" or "messiah", but they believe he had another name, took a body at another time, etc. See Haile Selassie, Emperor of Ethiopia, to whom Rastafarians attribute many of the things found in Christian scriptures rather than to Jesus Christ.

Confusingly, you might even hear "trinity" nomenclature being used by Rastafarians, but be aware that they mean something completely different by this than Christians:

  Rastafari doctrines concerning the Trinity include stressing the significance of the name "Haile Selassie," meaning power of the Trinity, might of the Trinity, powerful trinity in Ge'ez or also Haile Selassie I (qedamawi Haile Selassie) meaning the (first power of the Trinity) name given to Ras Tafari upon his baptism and later assumed as part of his regnal name at his November 2, 1930 coronation by the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, then known as just the Ethiopian Tewahedo Church. (Wikipedia)


Are those that enter into a marriage that is later annulled required to do any penance? I understand that in Catholicism, annulments are sometimes issued for marriages that meet certain criteria.  I'm wondering if the simple fact that the couple entered into a marriage that was not right or properly sanctioned by God if it is considered to have been a sin to do so.  It does appear, perhaps, that the couple would have been involved in a sexual relationship with someone who was not rightfully their spouse.

So, the question is, "Is there any penance required for those who have entered into a marriage that is later annulled?" and, if so, "What is the nature of that penance?"

No.

The idea of annulment aka declaration of nullity is that the marriage is void ab initio. It's not dissolved, it has never existed (Catechism 1629).

Now, normally, this is caused by innocent things: for instance, if I pretend to be a priest and marry you and your sweetheart, the marriage can (and will) be annulled due to CCC 1630, which requires a priest for marriage at least between Catholics. Equally, if you happen to be too young for marriage. Or, actually, if you've got antecedent & perpetual impotence (Code of Canon Law Canon 1084§1).

Some situations are dodgier. Annulment per lig aka per causa ligamentes means you've tried to marry while already being married. That might be an oopsie!, in which case there is nothing wrong with it, you just need to clear your previous marriage. Or it might be intentional deceit, which does attract the need to confess and do penance.

Finally, there are the really nasty forms that cause nullity. Crimen is everyone's favourite one, which consists of you and your sweetheart conspiring to whack your current spouse so you can marry (actually, this is so whether you have had sex or not!). Quite obviously, there will be some penance involved in that case! Also, jail time.

The bottom line:

Some things you do to enter into an invalid marriage may be a sin,
but simply entering into a void marriage is not a sin in itself.
If it's a sin otherwise, it will, obviously, attract penance.
Knowledge is important, of course. Knowingly entering into a marriage you know
would be void, such as when you know you're impotent, is basically
fraudulent.


Did Martin Luther really nail his 95 Theses to the church door? The traditional story is that Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the church doors of Wittenberg, Germany, which served as a bulletin board of sorts, on October 31, 1517. However, some sources debate this. For instance, this article about Luther commemoration in the US contains a slideshow with the following:

  Did Luther really nail his 95 theses to the main door of the Wittenberg Castle church? Reformation historians are still discussing this point 500 years later. In fact, Luther himself never mentioned the theses. Belgian historical painter Ferdinand Pauwels didn't seem to care - he painted Luther with hammer and nails anyway.

It unfortunately does not elaborate or provide sources.

Did Luther really nail his 95 Theses to the church door on October 31st? And if not, where did that traditional image and date come from?

Martin Luther, we know from his own writings, was clearly neither a fanatic nor a protester. His sensible and restrained attitude to the Iconoclasts (see other question and answer) demonstrates this.

'Nailed' is somewhat evocative and very likely an exaggeration as is the 'door' of the building. What appears to be the case (see Wikipedia entry below) is that the porchway to the Castle Church was used to post notices of forthcoming events, just as is the porchway of Malvern Abbey, just down the road from me,  today.

The Ferdinand Pauwels painting (below) is not exactly dramatic and may well represent the reality of what occurred.

Luther either pinned his letter to the Archbishop there, or (more probably) pinned a copy of his letter to the usual place for notices of interest, after having sent the original to its addressee.

This is the version of events favoured by the current Wikipedia account of the event.

  Luther sent the Theses enclosed with a letter to Albert of Brandenburg, the Archbishop of Mainz, on 31 October 1517, a date now considered the start of the Reformation and commemorated annually as Reformation Day. Luther may have also posted the Theses on the door of All Saints' Church and other churches in Wittenberg in accordance with University custom on 31 October or in mid-November.

  The main portal was often used by the university staff to pin up messages and notices; it is generally believed that on 31 October 1517, the eve of All Saints' Day, Martin Luther posted his Ninety-five Theses on the doors of All Saints' Church. This act, meant to promote a disputation on the sale of indulgences, is commonly viewed to be a catalyst for the Protestant Reformation. Whether the event actually took place or not, however, cannot be conclusively established. Nevertheless, Luther sent his objections in a letter to Archbishop Albert of Mainz on the same day.

Wikipedia - 'All Saints' Church, Wittenberg'

In the heading of the letter, Luther makes it clear that his 95 theses (see below) will be 'defended' at his ordinary lectures at Wittenberg. It is therefore the notification of an event yet to take place, and therefore quite a justifiable document to pin up outside the Castle Church building, according to common practice.

The Heading of the 95 Theses :

  Out of love for the truth and from desire to elucidate it, the Reverend Father Martin Luther, Master of Arts and Sacred Theology, and ordinary lecturer therein at Wittenberg, intends to defend the following statements and to dispute on them in that place. Therefore he asks that those who cannot be present and dispute with him orally shall do so in their absence by letter. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, Amen.

Luther, himself, claims to have behaved quite properly and in an orderly fashion, according to established procedures within Wittenberg.

  Luther always claimed that he brought his objections through proper channels rather than inciting a public controversy

Wikipedia 'Ninety-five Theses'

  The Full Text of the 95 Theses - is available to read here.


How do Jehovah's Witness view divorce? My husband is a disfellowshipped Jehovah's Witness and he has filed for a divorce.

What is the Jehovah's Witness belief about divorce and the responsibility of the husband to a non JW wife?

Jehovah's Witnesses believe adultery is the only appropriate reason for divorce.

"You have heard the law that says, 'A man can divorce his wife by merely giving her a written notice of divorce.'
But I say that a man who divorces his wife, unless she has been unfaithful, causes her to commit adultery. And anyone who marries a divorced woman also commits adultery.
Matthew 5:31-32

You stated you had not committed adultrey (before @AffableGeek removed that). Thus, Jehovah's Witnesses would say the divorce is unjustified. This can be grounds disciplinary actions (though it appears your husband has already undergone that).
This is true regardless of the spouse's faith.
If the spouse actively prevents the other from following God, or is abusive, divorce is somewhat acceptable. But in this case, the person may not remarry while the spouse is alive, or else they are guilty of adultery. It is more of a separation than a divorce.


How did the Crusades impact modern Christianity? How do the crusades impact modern day Christianity own sense of morality and spirituality? What do these things mean to a person of faith?

The Crusades, from Wikipedia

  The Crusades were a series of religiously sanctioned military campaigns, called by the Pope and with the main goal of restoring Christian control of the Holy Land. The crusaders came from all over western Europe. The main series of Crusades occurred between 1095 and 1291; historians have given them numbers, later unnumbered crusades were also taken up for a variety of reasons.

  Related Question:

  How did the Inquisition impact modern Christianity?

Well, only the Catholic and Orthodox churches existed during the times of the crusade.  So, most major Protestant groups tend to wash their hands of the whole matter since they didn't exist at the time.

The Catholic church specifically, has apologized for the Crusades (back in 2000) and seems to carry a sense of shame about the whole event.

The event itself seems to be a bit of a dark mark in Christian history--a time when people were willing to kill other people for their religious beliefs.  Most Christians seem to take the fact of the Crusades at face value and see it as a historical event (and something to avoid).

Since these events aren't preached upon or taught in churches, it seems that there is minimal impact on modern Christianity, except for possibly the preclusivity of mounting another Crusade/holy war from a Christian stance.

sources 1; 2


Who do Seventh Day Adventist think the Harlot is in Revelation chaps 17 & 19? According to Seventh Day Adventist’s Who/what is the harlot noted in Revelation?
Why do you or your source think that answer is correct?

From a Seventh-Day Adventist perspective, and also what many of the reformers believed, the Bible points to the harlot of Revelation as the Roman Catholic system.

A woman in prophecy and in Jesus' parables (10 virgins) represents a church or group of believers. (Revelation 12:1-6, 10 virgins, etc.)
A harlot represents a church that has been unfaithful to the teachings of God.

  Cause Jerusalem to know her abominations. ... You trusted in your own
  beauty, played the harlot” (Ezekiel 16:2, 15).

She persecuted the saints (Rev 17:6).

4.She was dressed in purple and scarlet (Rev 17:4). The pope often wears the royal color
of purple at important functions, and red is the color of the robes of Catholic cardinals.

5.The seven heads of the beast (Rev 17:3) upon which the woman is seated are seven mountains (Rev 17:9). It is well-known that Rome, the headquarters of the papacy, is built upon seven hills, or mountains.

6.The beast is guilty of blasphemy (Rev 17:3), a point that also clearly fits the papacy, if you look at the Biblical definition of blasphemy (claims to forgive sins and claims to be God)

7.She ruled “over the kings of the earth” (Rev 17:18). Alexander Flick says that by the 13th century, the pope was “at least in theory ... the ruler of the whole world in temporal and spiritual affairs.” This point could fit no other earthly kingdom or government. The papacy is described in Revelation 17 too clearly for doubt.

This will likely ruffle some feathers and get down-voted around here, but some people still do believe this, among them are SDAs. Also, pretty much all the reformers of old believed this as well. Huss, Wycliffe, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Melanchthon, Cranmer, Tyndale, Latimer, Ridley, and many others.

For a in-depth, Biblical study, see The Other Woman.


Why aren't Christmas and New Year's Day the same date? As I understand it, the modern calendar is separated by Jesus's birth (B.C. for "before Christ" and A.D. for Anno Domini). Ignoring the fact that Christ was probably born between 6-4 B.C and possibly in a different month altogether, then wouldn't that make Christmas and New Year's Day the same day?
From what I have been able to find, New Year's day would correspond to Christ's Brit Milah, which is celebrated as the Feast of the Circumcision (and Naming) of Christ. But that brings up the question, if B.C. means "before Christ," would that imply that Pope Gregory XIII, who  made the Gregorian Calendar, thought Jesus was not officially the Christ until his Brit Milah? Or am I over-interpreting the proximity of Christmas and New Year's Day, which could be a mere coincidence?

Why aren't Christmas and New Year's Day the same date?
In one sense they are the same date!
The short answer is that they are simply not taking the same place within the civil calendar.
Yet on the other side of the coin, they may seem to be the same date, although their not.
This question is going to be answered in a little convoluted and complicated manner.
It is true that liturgically speaking the Feast of the Circumcision of Christ is celebrated on January 1st, while the Feast of the Nativity is celebrated on  December 25th.
In the ancient days of Christendom, major feasts were celebrated for eight days. Christmas in days gone by was celebrated for eight days in a row, called liturgically an octave. Thus the Feast of Christmas columnated with the Solemnity of the Circumcision of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Thus in a liturgical sense of traditional minded Catholics, Christmas is one continuous liturgical feast that ends on January 1st.
The Feast of the Circumcision is a natural way to conclude the Christmas feast day, as circumcision was performed on the "eighth day" after birth, the number 8 became associated also with baptism, and baptismal fonts have from an early date often been constructed  in an octagonal design.
Thus the Brit Milah of Jesus would be a fantastic way to end the Octave of Christmas. Satan hates this day for on this day Christ received the sacred name of Jesus.  In the Catholic Church, January 1st remains a holy day of obligation.
Thus we can conclude the Pope Gregory XIII believed the Jesus was the Christ at the very moment of his conception in the womb of the Virgin Mary. Moreover, Christmas and the Circumcision of Christ was seen as one continuous feast!
In 1582, Pope Gregory XIII (Gregorian Calendar) corrected the Julian Calendar, the first day of the year varied from country to country.
For example, England celebrated New Years Day on March 25th. Now in England, the 25th of March fell on the Feast of the Announciation. The faithful of the Middle Ages were more religiously mind than our modern society is now. This can be seen in the fact that in som pious liturgical books the Annunciation and Good Friday. This had no effect on the date of the Easter celebration which was liturgical celebrated anytime between Marsh 22nd to April 25th, depending on when the first full moon of spring occurred.
It should equally be noted tha the Romans celebrated their New Years Day on January 1st. In an other view point, Gregory XIII was restoring the first day of the civil calendar to it’s original place!


"Kingdom Of God is at Hand" - Which Kingdom was Jesus and John the Baptist talking about? The Bible clearly says that Jesus preached that the Kingdom of Heaven was at hand.

  Matthew 4:17: From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

What kingdom was Jesus preaching about?
Has this kingdom been established?

Romans 14:17 tells us that the kingdom of God is righteousness,peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.  Personally, I think it is a state of mind.   The Bible also says that it is a mystery (Mark 4:11). However it also tells us how to get into the kingdom of God now.  First one must seek for it. Secondly, John 3:3 and verse 5 it tells us we must be baptized in water and also in the Holy Ghost or Spirit "to enter into the kingdom of God."


How come Good and Evil fruit brought from same tree of knowledge in the garden of Eden? GOD's words will never change from the beginning of creation and forever.                   If we read in Mathew chapter 7 words 17-18  it says:

  17) Every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
  18) A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

I need to understand how this tree of knowledge bringeth forth GOOD and EVIL fruit which Adam and Eve eat.

Thanks for asking. There are some important principles here.

First it is important to understand that in Matthew 7 Jesus is not talking about trees. He is using trees as a metaphor for people. To try to learn about trees from his statement is a wrong approach.

Looking at the Garden of Eden, the Tree was in fact bringing forth good fruit - its purpose was to produce fruit which gave knowledge of Good and Evil, and it did. The tree itself wasn't doing anything wrong. It did not bring forth either Good or Evil, but only the knowledge of them.

The problem was not that the fruit was bad, but that Adam and Eve were doing something with it that they weren't supposed to do. They were told not to eat it and they did.

There are plenty of trees today that give fruit that has a good purpose, but that purpose isn't for eating. The Horse Chestnut comes to mind. If you try to eat a Horse Chestnut you will get very sick, but that's not because the chestnut tree gave bad fruit - it's because you ate something that wasn't for eating.


Where did the concept of Christians attending a church building come from? Christians attend church on Sundays, they sing, listen to a pastor speak, etc.
When did such a concept first appeared?
Did the early Christians practice this?  or is this 'attending church' a medieval tradition from the Roman Catholic church?

In the earliest days of the church Christians met in the Temple in Jerusalem and in each others homes. (Acts 2:26)

The Apostles would preach in the Jewish synagogues, often evangelistically, but sometimes even at the invitation of the other Jews. (See Acts 13 for example)

They would meet in lecture halls, such as the Hall of Tyrannus in Ephesus. (Acts 19:9)

The New Testament doesn't mention purpose built church buildings, and in the New Testament era the most common meeting place for Christians was in each others' homes.

The earliest known church building is the Dura-Europos church, which was converted from a regular house in around 233-256AD.


How does one reconcile Sola Fide with the parable of the talents? When I consider how my light is spent
    E're half my days, in this dark world and wide,
     And that one Talent which is death to hide,
     Lodg'd with me useless, though my Soul more bent
  To serve therewith my Maker, and present
     My true account, least he returning chide,
     Doth God exact day-labour, light deny'd,
     I fondly ask; But patience to prevent
  That murmur, soon replies, God doth not need
     Either man's work or his own gifts, who best
     Bear his milde yoak, they serve him best, his State
  Is Kingly. Thousands at his bidding speed
     And post o're Land and Ocean without rest:
     They also serve who only stand and waite.

John Miton, "On His Blindness".

  The one who had received five talents went off right away and put his money to work

Matthew 25:16, NET.

The face meaning of the parable of the talents is surely "Use what you have, don't bury it" and Milton alludes to that in his sonnet. Milton is saying that God gave him gifts and now, due to blindness, he can't use them.  Someone like Jenkins would, it seems, be totally clueless why that would matter.

Since sola fide adherents say that actual good deeds don't matter (and sometimes, in extreme cases, seem to strongly imply that doing good deeds is actually a bad thing), how do they interpret the parable of the talents?

(Question inspired by a discussion of the Left Behind books by Tim LaHay and Jerry Jenkins, both the main post by Fred Clark (which discusses how the doctrine of sola fide affects the writing of the books), and the comment by Mary Kaye (which brings up the parable of the talents).)

Sola Fide answers "how do you get saved."

The parable of the talents addresses, what is my reward, once I am saved.

Even the most Calvinistic sole ride adherent still believes that you should work for the kingdom. Whether or not you get to heaven may not be in your control, but how well you have pleased the Master once you are there most certainly is.

The beauty of the parable of the talents is not that we can earn anything- indeed, it would be assumed that the Master could handle his own assets best of all. Rather, that we as servants of the most high have the privilege of participating in the work of Christ is pretty cool. True gratitude for the ability to do anything is evidenced by labor for the Kingdom. And again, that God would allow us to join Him in what we do is supposed to "spur us on to good works."

Does God need us? No more than a dad needs a toddler. Does anything we do make him love us more or less? NOt at all.

But God likes us and let's us try. How cool is that?


Why was Jesus baptised by John the Baptist? We know the story:

  13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. 14 But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”
  15 Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented. (Matthew 3:13-15)

Why was it necessary to be Baptized by John in order to fulfill all righteousness?

The Baptism of John was calling sinners to repentance. It was unusual in that it was treating the Jews as Gentiles. Everyone was considered impure and needing washing at the door-step of the New Covenant:

From wiki we get a clear definition of the Jewish Mikveh. It is correctly stated here that:

  Several biblical regulations specify that full immersion in water is required to regain ritual purity after ritually impure incidents have occurred.

It signified washing impurity away.

More applicable to our text Mikveh was used, and is still used today to convert Gentiles to Judaism. Here is a quote from the Jewish historian Alfred Edersheim on the subject:

  ‘the proselytes of righteousness,’ who became ‘children of the covenant,’ ‘perfect Israelites,’ Israelites in every respect, both as regarded duties and privileges. All writers are agreed that three things were required for the admission of such proselytes: Circumcision (Milah), Baptism (Tebhilah),and a Sacrifice (Qorban, in the case of women: baptism and sacrifice) - the latter consisting of a burnt-offering of a heifer, or of a pair of turtle doves or of young doves (Maimonides, Hilkh. Iss. Biah xiii. 5).

So the question remains why did Jesus submit to a baptism calling everyone to repentance for their sins, in preparation of Christ’s appearing?

There are many views why Jesus was Baptized, some of the better views are; His coming as the Representative of a guilty race, or as the bearer of the sins of others, or of His surrendering Himself symbolically to death for man. However as Jesus came to ‘fulfill all righteousness’ it seems to best to say that He came to perform perfect obedience to Gods Law.  This obedience not only included all the ceremonial, civil and moral laws given to Moses, but as Christ was not only God but man, He must also submit to the ministries of Prophets sent by God. Furthermore the level of consciousness that Jesus, as a man, had of His purpose and ministry seems to have taken a sudden increase after His submission. For it is hear that God declares from a voice from heaven and a visible token of His Spirit anointing Him for His ministry that he has the One whom God loved, that is the King Messiah, and also the suffering servant who He was well pleased with.

So His baptism was to fully comply with all Laws in order to have a righteousness that He could provide to sinners while the sins of the world were placed upon Him in return.  This is why John says:

  The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! (NIV John 1:29)

Jesus was presenting Himself as the Lamb in Baptism, to suffer all the sins of men punishable under the Laws of Moses. John was including the righteous Pharisees and sinful tax collectors as equally needing this baptism of repentance for sin. Jesus was the center upon which this baptism had meaning, for water does not cleanse.


How do proponents of the perpetual virginity of Mary view Matthew 13:53–57? Matthew 13:53–57 reads:

  53 When Jesus had finished these parables, he moved on from there. 54 Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. “Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?” they asked. 55 “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? 56 Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” 57 And they took offense at him. (NIV)

I have read that proponents of the doctrine claim that the word translated as "brothers" in Matthew 13:55 does not necessarily imply biological relationship (http://www.catholic.com/blog/matt-fradd/jesus-had-brothers). Looking at the verses though, I find it difficult to imagine why the word translated as "brothers" would be anything but biological. Why would people who are in Jesus' hometown (verse 53) and who also used the word "sisters" (verse 56) use "brothers" in a way that is not biological?

The link you quote (which I will also link to here) explains the view of Catholics on this passage in some detail. The article explains how they interpret the passage, and gives examples of other places where 'brother' does not imply coming from the same womb. If it was a normal usage of the time, then there is no reason why people of Jesus' hometown would not have used it of course, and 'sisters' presumably has similar usage.

Not all Christians agree with the interpretation, and if you are not a Catholic you are free to hold a differing view.


In Catholicism, what are the arguments for the reasonableness (see body) of an eternal hell? An eternal hell is difficult concept for some to grasp even among those who call themselves Catholic. [Cf. Debunking the myth of hell, by Carol Meyer, Feb. 3, 2011 | NCR]. The last paragraph in the article ends:

  All arguments for hell, however reasonable they once sounded, are debunked by one single truth—God is LOVE. The end of the story.

The Catholic Church teaches that even though Revelation remains charged with mystery, and though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason, and revealed truths appear as true and intelligible in the light of our natural reason. Therefore even though the mysteries of Faith are beyond reason, they are not unreasonable (i.e. agreeable to reason or sound judgment; logical; being in accordance with reason ) and they can be defended [vs. proven] by employing arguments from reason [cf. Catholicism.org > Faith and Reason].

The question is, in Catholicism, drawing from Catholic patrimony [e.g. Church Fathers, the Saints & Doctors], what are the arguments for the reasonableness [intelligible in the light of our natural reason and/or reasonable and in accordance with the faith and/or not against reason] of an eternal hell?

This question is looking  for arguments:

intelligible in the light of our natural reason
that are reasonable and in accordance with the faith
that are not against reason

for an eternal hell.

The question ought to stand like this and it is not necessary, nor required, nor in accordance with C.SE site criteria to start with the arguments for eternal hell being illogical.

Rephrasing:

If the Church teaches that the truths of the faith are intelligible in the light of natural reason and eternal hell is one of the truth she teaches, what have been the arguments intelligible in the light of natural reason [and/or reasonable and in accordance with the faith and/or not against reason] that have been made, drawing from Catholic patrimony [e.g. Church Fathers, the Saints & Doctors], for an eternal hell?

Some related C.SE questions:

According to Catholic teaching; how long do we go to Hell for?
Eternal existence in hell?
Does Hell exist according to Catholicism?

Reasonable understood here as:

being in accordance with reason  and
agreeable to reason or sound judgment; logical:

Faith & Reason

Not all divinely revealed truths can be known without Divine Revelation. For example, the fact that God is triune (Three Persons of one Divine Substance) cannot be known by natural reason,¹ even though it is not against reason. The existence of God, however, can be known by natural reason,² and so can His divinity.³
¹St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica I q. 32 a. 1 article "Whether the trinity of the divine persons can be known by natural reason?"²ibid. q. 2 a. 2 "Whether it can be demonstrated that God exists?"³Rom. 1:20: "For his invisible things, from the creation of the world are seen, being understood by those things that are made: his eternal power also and Divinity: so that they are inexcusable."

This is an ambiguous statement: "the Church teaches that the truths of the faith are intelligible in the light of natural reason"

What it should say is: "the Church teaches that some of the truths of the faith are intelligible (i.e., "discoverable" or understandable) in from the light of natural reason, and none of them are against reason," although most are above human reason.

St. Thomas Aquinas gives two uses of reason in his Summa Theologica I q. 32 a. 1 article "Whether the trinity of the divine persons can be known by natural reason?":

  Reason may be employed in two ways to establish a point:

  …for the purpose of furnishing sufficient proof of some principle…

  and

  not as furnishing a sufficient proof of a principle, but as confirming an already established principle, by showing the congruity
  of its results

Way #1 is not possible for all truths of the faith. Way #2 is how reason is employed for understanding the Trinity and other truths of the Faith not "discoverable"/understandable/intelligible by human reason alone.

See the First Vatican Council's document on faith and reason, Dei Filius.

Determining Whether a Dogma is Reasonable using Human Reason Only

Proving the Reasonableness of a Dogma

Apart from faith, there are at least the following ways to show that a dogma is in accordance with reason:

Come up with a proof of way #1 reasoning. This is the strongest reasoning on a merely human level.Such a proof is not known to exist for the dogma of hell's eternity, but that does not necessarily imply someone will not discover such a proof in the future. It is also not defined dogma that such a proof cannot be found.
Show that reason is in accordance with the dogma in every possible way.* This isn't humanly possible because there might be an infinite number of ways to show.*This would be "to prove a negative, which isn't possible," as per earlier DJClayworth's comments.
Offer individual examples of way #2 reasoning showing where this dogma is in accordance with reason.This is the weakest way of reasoning because it only offers probable reason to believe the dogma does not contradict reason.

Proving the Unreasonableness of a Dogma

Apart from faith, there is least the following way of showing that a dogma contradicts reason:

Come up with a counterexample showing that it does contradict reason (e.g., Carol Meyer's reasoning that the eternity of hell contradicts God's love*).*This is easily disproved by noting that God is infinitely just. Plus, is her reasoning even "apart from faith"?

Showing the Eternity of Hell is in Accordance with Reason

It is a de fide ("of faith") dogma that hell is eternal.

A few such "individual examples of way #2 reasoning" are the following:

1) One can prove from natural reason the eternity of the soul* and conclude from that that it is reasonable that a soul could exist eternally in a state deprivation of the Beatific Vision in hell.*St. Thomas Aquinas argues that the human soul is "subsistent" (eternal) in Summa Theologica I q. 75 a. 2.

2) As just kings have prisons with life sentences or impose capital punishment [there is no coming back from that]; so must God, a King, Who is infinitely just, have hell with eternal sentences (cf. this).

3) Since the will of the damned is set in its ways toward evil, we could ask: "Could someone's will never change toward the good?" Analogously, we could also ask: "Could someone be blind forever?" In answer to this, St. Thomas Aquinas would say "Yes." He compares God's withdrawal of His grace from the damned to the lack of sight of a blind man, in Summa Theologica I-II q. 85 a. 2 ("Whether the entire good of human nature can be destroyed by sin?") ad 3:Even in the lost [i.e., the damned] the natural inclination to virtue remains, else they would have no remorse of conscience. That it is not actualized is owing to their being deprived of grace by Divine justice. Thus even in a blind man the aptitude to see remains in the very root of his nature, inasmuch as he is an animal naturally endowed with sight: yet this aptitude is not actualized, for the lack of a cause capable of actualizing it, by forming the organ requisite for sight.Thus, just as it is possible for a blind man to lack sight, so is it reasonable that the damned lack grace.

4) The preservation of moral and social order would not be sufficiently provided for, if men knew that the time of trial were to be continued after death. (cf. this). Or that no matter how long, the punishment would eventually end.

The more arguments "of way #2 reasoning," the closer we approach to the more perfect reasoning of the second list point under the heading "Proving the Reasonableness of a Dogma" above.


Did Jesus need to die, or would mere shedding of blood have been sufficient? Originally: St. Thomas Aquinas on salvation by a drop of Christ's Blood

I heard on Relevant Radio a year or so ago something perplexing, I think it was a priest saying it, but it may have been a layman, regardless, he seemed very smart, and seemed to know a lot about the theology of St. Thomas Aquinas.

Somewhere, I know not where, St. Thomas said that the Crucifixion was not necessary for salvation and that only a drop of Jesus' blood needed to be spilled.

Where and why did he write/say this and what is the reason for this.  Is it accepted Catholic Doctrine and how much more does the Crucifixion do for us than a single drop of Christ's Precious Blood?

The statement “Crucifixion was not necessary for salvation and that only a drop of Jesus' blood needed to be spilled” could not have been from St. Thomas Aquinas. This is because it obliquely implies that there was no need for Christ to die, which is grossly against the tenets of Christianity.

St. Thomas was one of the supreme advocates of Eucharistic devotion and exponents of the nature of the mysterious process by which the host becomes the Body and Blood of Christ.  Indeed, it was St. Thomas Aquinas who not only explained transubstantiation but also provided for the first time the word for it.

In his famous works “Summa theologiae” several times, St Aquinas stresses the importance of sacrifice of Jesus’ body and blood.

  "The sacrifices of the Old Law contained only in figure that true sacrifice of Christ's Passion", whereas, "it was necessary that the sacrifice of the New Law instituted by Christ should have something more, namely, that it should contain Christ himself crucified, not merely in signification or figure, but also in very truth" (Summa, III, 75, 1, c.).

  The Eucharist is, as it were, "the consummation of the spiritual life, and the end of all the sacraments" (Summa, III, 73, 3, c.).

  The reason for this, St Thomas explains, lies in the fact that whereas the energy — "vis" or "virtus" — of the Passion of Christ is active in the other sacraments, the Eucharist contains "Christ's own Body" (Summa, III, 73, 1, 3m); ); in Scholastic language, Christ is present as "the common spiritual good of the whole Church... contained substantially in the sacrament itself of the Eucharist" (Summa, III, 65, 3, 1), in order to bring man to full communion with Christ in the Passion (cf. Summa, III, 73, 2, 3m).

St Thomas Aquinas also writes that

  "in our pilgrimage, [Christ] does not deprive us of his bodily presence, but unites us with himself in this sacrament through the truth of his Body and Blood" (Summa, III, 75, 1, c.), always seen in their sacrificial condition".

Therefore, this statement is not in line with Catholic doctrine.

"And how much more does the Crucifixion do for us than a single drop of Christ's Precious Blood?"

While a single drop of Christ’s precious blood could cleans us from all sins, His death and resurrection was necessary for us to overcome the eternal damnation that came on us from our first parents. Our salvation is a result of death and resurrection of Jesus. The whole episode of crucifixion, including the circumstances leading to His crucifixion has been phrased as the passion of Christ and Jesus' physical torture including crucifixion was part of His punishment for our salvation.

The definitive plan of salvation began with the Fall of our first parents and the establishment of animal sacrifice as the one means of dealing with sin. Sin separated God's children from Him. There had to be a means to prevent eternal separation and that “means” became animal sacrifice by killing them and spilling their blood. Leviticus 17:11 explains God’s plan for forgiving sin.

God said to our first parents: For in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. (Genesis 2:17). If we were to take this “death” that God mentioned, as physical death then the same day they were supposed to have died. Here God was telling them about the eternal death not the physical death, which Adam died 930 years later (Genesis 5:5).

Physical death physically destroys the body but it is not an eternal destruction. The eternal death destroys the soul. Christ crucifixion, death and resurrection was necessary to overcome the power of this eternal death. With resurrection of Christ there will be a resurrection of all those who believed in Christ as He overcome the power of eternal death by His resurrection from death.

St. Thomas Aquinas:

  Just as man was overcome and deceived by the devil, so also it should be a man who should overcome the devil. And since man deserved death so it should be a man who, by dying, vanquishes death. That is why it is written: 'Thanks be to God who has given us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ [1 Cor. 15:57]. Summa Theologiae 3:46:4.

P.S. May be what Priest/layman said on Radio Relevant was: Death not necessarily by Crucifixion but by any other means. Or it may  THIS issue.


Do Orthodox Christians believe that God wants a personal relationship with the individual? This question only asks about "Christians". One high-quality response on that question suggests that the personal relationship idea extends from the Enlightenment. So, in light of that question and answer, do Orthodox Christians believe that God wants a personal relationship with the individual?

I focus on Eastern Orthodoxy, because the Enlightenment is chiefly a Western phenomenon. Because of the geographical barrier between Eastern and Western Europe, I would not expect an Enlightment idea would somehow influence Orthodoxy, unless there is some kind of intense mass communication going on or the personal relationship thing has been with Christianity since the beginning.

So, generally speaking, do Orthodox Christians believe in a personal relationship with God? Why or why not?

Here is an exerpt from an article by Fr. Steven Kostoff's (OCA Priest and he is also a member of the adjunct faculty of the theology department at Xavier University in Cincinnati, where he has taught various courses on Orthodox theology) weekly articles on Orthodoxy that does justice to the topic theologically from an Orthodox perspective:

If I am not mistaken, the phrase "a personal God," fairly current in contemporary religious discourse, is meant to say something first about the nature of God, rather than our subjective or "personal" understanding of God. To paraphrase the French philosopher Blaise Pascal, we believe in "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob," and not the "god of the philosophers." The former is "personal" but the latter is "impersonal." This personal God is the God of the Scriptures Who is love and not the Unmoved Mover of the Greek philosophers. The God who reveals/shows/manifests Himself to persons so that a conscious and living relationship, ultimately based on faith, hope and love can be created, sustained, and ever deepened. A "personal God" means that God is concerned about, and engaged with the world and human persons. God cares about our lives and our destinies. "Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground without your Father's will. But even the hairs of your head are numbered." (MATT. 10:29-30) As the Russian elder, Macarius of Optina put it: "To hold the faith does not only mean that we believe God to be our Creator. It also means that we recognize His unceasing and detailed attention to our good .."
A "personal God" is not the God who remains aloof from the world, as if God is a cosmic clockmaker, who wound up the universe and now allows it to "run" on its own inherent laws free of providential care and engagement. (That would be the "God" of deism, the belief of many of the Founding Fathers of our country). "For God so loved the world ..." could only be said of a personal God concerned about the direction and destiny of the world - a world that exists because God "loved" it into existence. God desires that we will all be saved "and come to the knowledge of the truth." (I TIM. 2:4) This is the God that we worship in the Liturgy and that we pray to in our homes "in secret." We then extend our belief in "a personal God" to our "subjective" and "personal" relationship with God, based on the faith that we can "know" God in His self-revelation. That means through the Son of God and the Holy Spirit. Every human being has the potential to have a "personal" relationship" with the "personal" God of Christian revelation. One can believe that an impersonal deity exists, but one cannot relate to such a "God." We thus return to my initial point that the term "a personal God" is meant primarily to tell us something about the nature of God, and then by extension about our relationship with God. It does not mean a God that we "create' through our personal ideas or musings. At least that is how I understand the term as commonly used in contemporary religious discourse.

Full article: http://holycrossoca.org/newslet/0807.html


Is there any historical evidence of the gifts of healing in operation by the second Century? I was wanting to know if any of the church fathers have documented anything concerning the gift of healing with eye witness testimony or the gift of Miracles being in operation by the second century?

Yes, The Martyrdom of Polycarp records the following event (occurring circa AD 155):

And as the flame blazed forth in great fury, we, to whom it was given
to witness it, beheld a great miracle, and have been preserved that we
might report to others what then took place. For the fire, shaping
itself into the form of an arch, like the sail of a ship when filled
with the wind, encompassed as by a circle the body of the
martyr...those wicked men perceived that his body could not be
consumed by the fire (see chapters 15-15 here).

This event was:

Observed by numerous people (public execution of a Christian Bishop)
Recorded by an eyewitness shortly after the event
Related by a group (Christians) that at the time lacked significant political or
economic power (in fact they were a persecuted minority)

It's pretty hard to get away with a fabricated story--let alone publish it all over the empire--when those three things are true.


Why is Jesus Christ only one person despite having two minds? I think this question haven't been asked yet here. The teaching of Chalcedonian Christianity (including the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant churches) is that Jesus Christ exists as one person with two natures: divine and human, united without mixing or confusion. Thus, in Jesus Christ there is not one will (contra Monothelism), there is no absence of the human soul (contra Apollinarianism) and there is not two persons (contra Nestorianism).

There is a new explanation just recently that is called Neo-Apollinarianism wherein it is said that Jesus had no uncreated human soul but that the divine Logos completes the human nature of Jesus Christ. In this view, the divine Logos underwent a change (divine mind became the soul) so that Jesus has one mind but still had two complete natures: divine and human (pro Chalcedon) (Source)

My question is: How to explain the doctrine that Jesus Christ is one person despite having two wills (dyothelitism) and two minds? Answers from any Chalcedonian perspective are welcome.

There is a complex Christological history behind this question. The common ground is that Jesus Christ is of two natures, divine and human. Christ's divine nature is uncreated and pre-existent, while his human nature is given through the Blessed Virgin Mary. This was then taken in two ways:

The theologians of Antioch in Syria emphasized the completeness of the two natures of Christ and his being fully divine and fully human, and that meant that in Christ incarnate there are two wills (or minds). This is dyophysitism. In order to be fully human, Christ needs to have a fallible human will, by which he can be tempted, otherwise tempted, fallible human beings cannot be saved through him. This is alongside Christ's perfect divine will. Nestorius, who became Patriarch of Constantinople in 428, was trained in Antiochene theology and was appalled by the popular devotion to the Virgin Mary in Constantinople by which she was addressed as Theotokos (or 'God-bearer'), believing that she should only be credited with the producing of Christ's human nature. This made Nestorius unpopular and led to accusations that he was advocating that Christ was two persons.
The other view came from the theologians of Alexandria in Egypt and was particularly expounded by Cyril of Alexandria, who became Patriarch of the city in 412. The Alexandrian view is that a person can only exist with a unified nature, and so Christ is of two natures, but, at his incarnation, these became one nature. This is monophysitism (but modern-day supporters of a moderate version of this view prefer to be called miaphysites). Thus, Christ has one will, even though that will has a fallible human part as well as a perfect divine. Cyril affirmed that the two natures were in united in Christ (a 'hypostatic union'), but others went for more extreme views. Apollinaris of Laodicea (died 390) advocated a view in which Christ's human nature is 'hollowed out', leaving a shell that is filled with his divine nature at the incarnation. And Eutyches of Constantinople (died around 456) taught the one-nature Christology so strongly that Christ's human nature was completely subsumed by his divine nature. The extreme versions of monophysitism tend towards an understanding of Christ as a kind of superman, a tertium quid who is not really wholly human anymore.

For a time, Cyril of Alexandria had the upper hand and Nestorius was exiled, but extremist one-nature Christologies needed to be rectified. The pendulum swung back, and the Council of Chalcedon (451) promulgated an essentially moderate two-nature Christology with Cyril's hypostatic union. This is the orthodox Christology of Catholics, most Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox churches.

There was, however, a strong monophysite dissent to Chalcedon, leading to centuries of attempts to find a different definition, which essentially came to nothing. One attempt at reconciliation was the seventh-century doctrine of monothelitism that taught that, whereas Christ is two natures, he has but one will. This doctrine secured official support in the East for a time, but, in the end, was condemned by the Third Council of Constantinople (680/1) for diminishing the fullness of Christ's human nature in order to reach a political compromise.

While the Christological debates do not say much about 'minds', the sense of 'will' comes closest. Christology is traditionally done working from the point of Jesus Christ being both fully human and fully divine and then navigate between the extremes of the two schools of thought. We might like to start from our experience of being human, which leads to the prevalence of new ways of expressing what are basically either adoptionist or Eutychian views, or even whatever Neo-Apollinarianism really is. An approach from human experience will also prefer an essentially monothelite response because, otherwise, we are looking at schizophrenia. The patristic approach, however, has been to ensure the fullness of the two natures, while disagreeing whether the hypostatic union makes them into one or holds them as two still. Perhaps the two approaches find common ground in some kind of Cyrillian miaphysitism that ensures the fullness of natures in perfect unity.