How much do we know about the Second Apostolic Council of Jerusalem of 69 AD? How much do we know about the Second Apostolic Council of Jerusalem of 69 AD?

I just bumped into a source that claims that Irenaeus, Eusebius and Saint Clement of Rome all mentioned that council. Is it that meeting that took place when Paul came back to Jerusalem in the book of Acts 21:18:

  And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the
  elders were present. (KJV)

or is it a council that took place much later? (I don't know the year when Paul returned to Jerusalem)

How much do we know about that council, what decisions were made?

Wikipedia has no article on the Second Apostolic Council of Jerusalem of 69 AD.

The end of Acts leaves us with Paul under house arrest, waiting to see Caesar, but he was later brought before Nero, who died in the year 68 AD, see Wikipedia. It is generally reckoned that Paul was executed by Nero, so Paul, also, would have departed this life on or before that same year.

So it would seem unlikely, or even impossible, that the incident in Acts 21:18 refers to 69 AD.


Is Luther really the originator of "We are saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves is never alone"? The quote "We are saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves is never alone" is commonly attributed to Martin Luther, but is this actually so? If so, in what context did he say or write this? If not, who first used this particular formulation (equivalent semantics if not exactly equivalent words)?

Calvin

The first extant writing to contain the phrase is John Calvin's Antidote to the Council of Trent (1547).

First, for context, Calvin was responding to Canon 11 of the sixth session of the Council of Trent (which you can read at the above link):

  Whosoever shall say that men are justified by the mere imputation of Christ's righteousness, or by the mere remission of sins, exclusive of grace and charity which is shed abroad in their hearts by the Holy Spirit, and is inherent in them, or also, that the grace by which we are justified is only the favor of God, let him be anathema.

Calvin replied:

  I wish the reader to understand that as often as we mention Faith alone in this question, we are not thinking of a dead faith, which worketh not by love, but holding faith to be the only cause of justification. (Galatians 5:6; Romans 3:22.) It is therefore faith alone which justifies, and yet the faith which justifies is not alone: just as it is the heat alone of the sun which warms the earth, and yet in the sun it is not alone, because it is constantly conjoined with light.

Lutheran confessions

A similar phrase is found in the Epitome of the Formula of Concord (1577), 3.11, one of the confessional documents of Lutheranism, written by a group of early Lutheran theologians including Martin Chemnitz:

  But after man has been justified by faith, then a true living faith worketh by love, Gal. 5:6, so that thus good works always follow justifying faith, and are surely found with it, if it be true and living; for it never is alone, but always has with it love and hope.

Luther himself

Fred Lybrand, who disagrees with the quote, wrote in his 2009 book Back to Faith (pp. 4-5) that he has been unable to find it in Martin Luther's writings, but he believes that Luther likely said it.

Luther's 1535 commentary on Galatians 5:6 may be of help here, since that's the verse referred to in the above statements by Calvin and the Book of Concord:

  Faith must of course be sincere. It must be a faith that performs good works through love. If faith lacks love it is not true faith. Thus the Apostle bars the way of hypocrites to the kingdom of Christ on all sides. He declares on the one hand, "In Christ Jesus circumcision availeth nothing," i.e., works avail nothing, but faith alone, and that without any merit whatever, avails before God. On the other hand, the Apostle declares that without fruits faith serves no purpose. To think, "If faith justifies without works, let us work nothing," is to despise the grace of God. Idle faith is not justifying faith. In this terse manner Paul presents the whole life of a Christian. Inwardly it consists in faith towards God, outwardly in love towards our fellow-men.

Luther also speaks on this concept in his Third Disputation Concerning Justification, written in 1536, which can be found in volume 34 of Luther's Works. I found the quote in Six Points on Luther's "Epistle of Straw" by James Swan. Catholics said that if sola fide is true, then you could say, "Faith without works justifies, Faith without works is dead [Jas. 2:17]. Therefore, dead faith justifies." Luther answered:

  The argument is sophistical and the refutation is resolved grammatically. In the major premise, "faith" ought to be placed with the word "justifies" and the portion of the sentence "without works justifies" is placed in a predicate periphrase and must refer to the word "justifies," not to "faith." In the minor premise, "without works" is truly in the subject periphrase and refers to faith. We say that justification is effective without works, not that faith is without works. For that faith which lacks fruit is not an efficacious but a reigned faith. "Without works" is ambiguous, then. For that reason this argument settles nothing. It is one thing that faith justifies without works; it is another thing that faith exists without works.

According to Roland Bainton's biography of Luther, Here I Stand, Luther wrote at one time:

  Faith is a living, restless thing. It cannot be inoperative. We are not saved by works; but if there be no works, there must be something amiss with faith.

Bainton's citation for this purported Luther quote is simply VIII, 361. I do not know what this refers to, so if anyone could comment below and let me know where it comes from, it would be much appreciated.

Regardless of the source of that last quote, there's a wealth of other similar Luther quotes. See footnotes 101 and 103 on page 246 of The Theology of Martin Luther by Paul Althaus for a few more examples.

Conclusion

So in summary, we have no record of Luther saying it, but the idea is present in his writings, and his followers used a variation of the phrase. The earliest recorded use of the phrase itself is by Calvin.


From a Reformed perspective, does retroactive prayer makes sense? From a reformed perspective, that God is outside of time, does it make sense to pray for something that already happened? Or, can a prayer cause God to impact time in a retroactive way?

An example could be: let's say your wife will be travelling to some other country from 3pm to 6pm. At 6:30pm you don't have any news about her, so you pray something like: "God, please take care of her, and I ask you that, if this is your will, no bad thing had happened".

Does this prayer makes sense from a reformed perspective? I mean, since God works outside of time, could you pray for something that already happened?

If this makes sense, have the Bible or the tradition any example of this kind of prayer?

If there is disagreement in reformed views about this question, a good answer would contain an overview of the differences.

Disclaimer

I'm not asking if "the act" of praying retroatively is OK, because this is a matter of opinion. What i'm asking is: "is praying for something that already happened theologically accurate, taking in consideration the reformed view of predestination and God's relationship with time?"

To me, this question boils down to the following:

Is it logically possible that "prayers for the past" or "retroactive prayers" are efficacious, given a Reformed perspective

In other words, does it make any sense (either logically or theologically) to pray for something which might already be "set in stone" as a part of history.  I address that in the first part, but then address the question of the real purpose of prayer and/or why we might even want to pray for God to change the past in the first place.

According to Kevin Timpe in Prayers for the past,

  All three of the world’s major monotheistic religions traditionally affirm
  that petitionary prayers can be causally efficacious in bringing about certain states of affairs.

However, there are different meanings of efficacious.  He quotes David Basiger in The Case for Free Will Theim (InterVaristy Press, 1996) as laying out 3 different ways that petitionary prayer can be efficacious:

  Petitionary prayer can beneficially affect the petitioner herself.
  Petitionary prayer can beneficially affect people who are aware that
  petitions are being made on their behalf.
  Petitionary prayer affects whether or not God directly intervenes in
  the world.

Kevin then goes on to address only the 3rd question - whether God can directly intervene in the world based on a retroactive prayer.  I believe this is the core of your question, but part of the answer is to realize that prayer has effects and reasons beyond God changing something in our world.  I will address this point at my conclusion and stick to the question of intervention for the moment.

He explores the matter of God being able to intervene in a past event from several different philosophical perspectives which all assume libertarian (incompatibilist) free will.  His conclusion is that:

From a logical viewpoint, the philosophical frameworks of simple foreknowledge, eternalism, and Molinism all support the logical efficacy of prayers directed at past event.
He also concludes that Openism (or Open Theism) is not logically consistent with past-directed or retroactive prayers.  This stems from the fact that Open Theism essentially argues that the future is not set, but the past is, and that God is a temporal being who knows all possible outcomes, but at a given point in time does not genuinely know the future.

The views of simple foreknowledge and Open Theism consider God to be temporal, and thus not "outside of time".  These are therefore incompatible with your question, so I will not address them further.  I believe eternalism and Molinism can roughly be grouped together, but the reader can pursue the distinctions further if desired.  C.S. Lewis, as an example, argues for the potential efficacy of past-directed prayers based on an atemporal nature for God.

The long and short of the analysis is that from a logical perspective, prayers for the past can cause God to intervene and change events, but only to the extent that they have not already be set in place or that we have knowledge of them.

For example, it does not make sense to pray for a different outcome to the battle of Waterloo, because it occurred well over a century ago, and is settled history.  However, if I become aware of a natural disaster which killed some people in a location where a family member lives, it may be efficacious to pray for that as the point is not "fixed" and all information is not known.  At this point God could logically still "change" the event from our perspective as temporal beings in the timeline.

Of course, the logical solution to the problem is that if we pray now for a past event, God would have known that and changed the event in the past based on knowing our future prayer.  A perfect example would be a prayer for the present that God provide for bills that are due tomorrow.  I receive a check in the mail that is just enough to cover them, today, but the check was sent a week ago.  Was that an answer to prayer?  Maybe, maybe not, but it 100% could have been...

What is the Relevance of This Conclusion?  The real answer...

I understand this viewpoint, and have no problem with the logical arguments he puts forth, but I do think this is all a little off the mark with respect to the real question.

If you search the scriptures, there are no examples of past-directed prayers.  In fact, there are very few examples (if any real ones) of true future-directed prayers.  I think this is the key to the real answer to the query.

The real answer goes to the purpose of prayer and how God interacts with his people.  All of the Bible describes God's love for mankind and him creating them to have a purpose of being in relationship with him, glorifying both God and his creation.  The purpose of prayer is intimately tied to that relationship.

Prayer appears to function as a way of enhancing our relationship with God.  While it is used as a means of furthering our sanctification, working out our salvation, etc., it is clear that even sinless humans are intended to pray - there are a multitude of examples of Jesus praying frequently and intensely to God the Father.

God wants to interact with us right now in time, about how we are living for him and what his will is for us at this moment. We, with Jesus as our example, should be asking what are the words and actions of the Father that he desires of us.  What is his will for us at this moment in time.  It is true that he wants us to bring our petitions to him, but even then we should pray as Jesus did - "but not my will, but yours be done".

Thus, my ultimate answer is that yes, past-directed prayers can be theologically sound, and while God can and does answer prayers (past, present, and future directed), our focus should be much more on simply sharing our hopes and fears with him, and seeking his will and guidance through his Spirit, while resting and rooted firmly in Jesus Christ, with him as our example.


Did the ante-Nicene Church fathers write in uncials? It’s certain that the earliest manuscripts of the New Testament (e.g., Codex Sinaiticus) were written in uncials, but what about non-biblical manuscripts written by the earliest of the “Early Church Fathers.” Did they too write in uncials, or did they include minisculars when writing? I am primarily concerned with the autographs of both the Greek and Latin Church fathers.

It's impossible to tell whether the original manuscripts (the autographs) of any given sacred text were written in one hand, or the other, since as far as we are able to tell, none have survived unharmed to the present day. The earliest manuscripts we have in our possession, though early, are certainly already copies, and a copyist may change the hand of a document as they will.

That being said, in Late Antiquity, uncial was the formal hand for writing documents when you wanted them to be widely readable, from Ireland to Dalmatia (and beyond to Egypt, if you switched to Greek uncials), so that's what we get in manuscripts from that era — or at least those which were composed with enough quality and treated well enough that they managed to survive to our day.

So most of the earliest documents do, indeed, use uncial and not minuscule, which was reserved for private notes and letters. Given that, some of the earliest letters might have been indeed written in minuscule, but because they didn't survive, we can only speculate.


When was the OT canon as used by Protestants finalized? At what date (and/or event) was the Old Testament canon currently recognized by most Protestants finalized? What is the earliest occurrence we have of it being referenced in it's current form and who (or what event) announced it as finalized?

According to Talmud, the Tanakh canon (Protestant OT) was compiled in 450 BC, but modern scholars describe the development of the canon as a process occurring between 200 BC to 200 AD. First the Torah, then the Nevi'im, and then the latest is the Ketuvim.


When might a Christians consider taking anti-depressants or psychiatric medications? There seems to be a variety of views about Christian use of medicine. I am not looking for answers related to the extreme position that God heals everybody if you only have faith. This seems far removed from the church in which we live. I have assumed that a Christian might need psychiatric medication under some circumstances. I am asking this more along the lines of a real question that a Christian might have if their doctor recommends such drugs. The answer to the question is intended to help such a person in that situation. Any Biblical guidance?

Should they take it?
Is it possible to need these drugs for life?

Medically speaking, it's a matter for your doctor to discuss with you.

From a doctrinal perspective, there is no one answer.

Group #1: Some traditions hold that there is no such thing as mental illness at all, and that any depression or other mental illness are the result of sin, or demonic influence.
Group #2: Others will regard the opinions of the above group as bunk.
Group #3: Yet others will tell you that in some cases, illness (including mental) could be a either/or medical issue or a spiritual one.

It boils down to what your convictions are. Your convictions are yours alone.  They may be influenced by your church, or your peers, or your family, but they are yours alone.

At judgment day, you will stand before God, not anybody else. Your convictions, or your preferences are not for anyone else to decide.

All of that said, I have never once found in Scripture the idea that medical treatment is in any way sinful.  The arguments I hear (and I hear them regularly) about not taking anti-depressants, or getting your kids vaccinated are based, not on Scripture, but on personal beliefs and the opinions of their own peers.

The idea that illness is a punishment for sin is one of the oldest pieces of bad advice in the book.  (See the book of Job.)

I have seen news stories about people who have died refusing medical treatment and instead, depending on faith.

I happen to fall into group #3 above, with strong leanings toward #2.

I do believe we over-medicate our kids, and use drugs to make things easier on the parents in some cases, but overall, I also believe that God gave us medical knowledge, as well as medicine, because He intends us to use it.

Again, it's going to boil down to your choice.  General advice I'd give to anyone:

Pray about it
Educate yourself.
Ask your doctor questions
Do your best to make an informed decision, one that takes your beliefs, convictions, and personal situation and weighs the options.

One might call this "Discernment" - something we're called to exercise.

Suggested reading: http://www.learnthebible.org/convictions.html


What is the Scriptural evidence for the Protestant view that the AntiChrist will be Jewish? In Eschatology, there is a lot of speculation about the identity of the AC, and if he's active on the world stage now, [in other words, a well known leader but just not having revealed his true identity yet] There is also a common view that he will be Jewish, and this is related to the idea that the Jews will think he is the Messiah.
**This is not to be seen in any way as a Anti-Semitic - I' am actually part Jewish, and very proud of this part of my heritage.
I'm happy to have answers from Jews and Catholics, but I'm only looking for answers from the 66 Books of the Canon.

What is the Scriptural evidence for the Protestant view that the AntiChrist will be Jewish?
This is not a view that is shared uniquely by some Protestants. Many Catholics, Orthodox and other denominations hold this viewpoint.
The problem with prophecy is that it becomes understood, only after the event foretold have run their course!
The Church Father, Irenaeus was the first to write that the Antichrist would be of Jewish origin from the Tribe of Dan.

As is well known, there is some lack of consistency among the Church Fathers in the way each tried to synthesize the variegated traditions that formed the Christian expectation of the Antichrist. This is no less true when it came to the question of the Antichrist's origins. The starting point for much of New Testament and later Christian thought, as well as much Jewish apocalyptic thought in this area, was the book of Daniel, particularly the portrayal of the final wicked ruler of Daniel's fourth kingdom in the visions of chapters 2 and 7, and filled in with details from chapters 8 and 11 which were thought to point beyond the past historical appear- ance of Antiochus Epiphanes. Paul (assuming it was indeed Paul) plainly draws upon this tradition in his description of the 'man of lawlessness' in 2 Thessalonians 2: 1-12. The book of Revelation too is indebted to this tradition in its depiction of the beast from the sea (13: 1-9), who embodies in some sense the four kingdoms of Daniel 2 and 7. This tradition of the fourth kingdom, wedded always in some way in the literature of our period to the Roman empire, lent itself to fears and speculation about the return of Nero as the head of the revived fourth kingdom, as may be seen in the Ascension of Isaiah and in Sibylline Oracles 3, 4, ands. And Origen can refer to his three main sources for Antichrist teaching, Daniel, the writings of Paul (2 Thess. 2: 1-12), and the sayings of Jesus in the Gospels (pels. 6. 45), without even men- tioning the Johannine writings. But it is precisely in those writings (1 John 2: 18, 22; 4: 3; 2 John 7), written towards the end of the first century AD, that the term 'Antichrist' makes its first known appearance in literature, and there no hint survives of a Roman or even a chiefly political foe. The author shows no trace of the Danielic fourth kingdom tradition at all. Rather, the emphasis is on deception, error, and false teaching, specifically about Jesus. This tradition is easily linked with words of Jesus in the Olivet Discourse about false prophets and false Christs working signs and wonders so as to deceive those who might still be looking for the Christ and, if such were possible, even the elect (Matt. 24: 5, ii, 23-24).
The idea of a Jewish Antichrist in Christian thought may be quite old. Bousset, with others, believed Paul had in view an Antichrist who would deceive the unbelieving Jews into thinking he was their Christ. Bousset goes on to intimate that Paul in 2 Cor. 6: 15 knows a name for the Antichrist, Belial, citing Test. Dan 5, the Sibyls, and Asc. Isa. But G. Jenks has recently shown this to be mistaken. At Qumran, Belial is a Satan figure, not an Antichrist. Jenks has established with some success the view that 'hellenistic Jewish literature was not familiar with an Antichrist figure such as occurs in the later Antichrist literature of early Christianity'. If one has in mind, as Jenks does, centrally important, human, messianic pretenders, and not merely evil
'Endtyrants' (such as show up in Daniel, and possibly in 4Q246 and the Testament of Moses) who may pose a military threat to the people of God, Jenks appears to be correct.
But our first explicit mention of a Jewish Antichrist comes in the writings of Irenaeus, where it occurs already in tandem with the people of God, the opinion that he will also spring from the tribe of Dan (AH 5. 11 30. 2). In AH 5. 25 Irenaeus details the career of the Antichrist: from 2 Thess. 2, tying the notice of Antichrist's taking his seat in the temple with Christ's 'abomination of desolation' in Matt. 24: 15 (cf. Dan. 9: 27); from Dan. 7, the little horn from the fourth beast; and from Jesus' parable of the unjust judge, Luke 18: 2 ff., wherein the judge is the Antichrist and the widow is the earthly Jerusalem: 'he shall remove his kingdom into that [city], and shall sit in the temple of God, leading astray those who worship him, as if he were Christ'. -  Antichrist from the Tribe of Dan

The Early Church believed that the Antichrist will have Jewish roots of some sort.

St. Methodius of Olympus 250 - 311
"When the Son of Perdition appears, he will be of the tribe of Dan, according to the prophecy of Jacob. This enemy of religion will use a diabolic art to produce many false miracles, such as causing the blind to see, the lame to walk, and the deaf to hear. Those possessed with demons will be exorcised. He will deceive many and, if he could, as our Lord has said, even the faithful elect.
"Even the Antichrist will enter Jerusalem, where he will enthrone himself in the temple as a god (even though he will be an ordinary man of the tribe of Dan to which Judas Iscariot also belonged).
St. John Chrysostom 347-407

"Antichrist will be possessed by Satan and be the illegitimate son of a Jewish woman from the East. This world will be faithless and degenerate after the birth of Anti-Christ”

The Church Fathers on the Antichrist

Many Christians believe that the Jewish nation as a whole will be converted to Christianity. However, they are still expecting the Messiah to come. Some have ventured to speculate that it will only be altered they have been deceived by the Antichrist.
In some sense this seems a logical step, since the Chosen People, as true to their heritage would not acknowledge an Antichrist (false messiah) of Gentile origins. It simply a logical future situation in the minds of many, whether Protestant, Catholic or other denominations.

The widespread conversion of the Jews to Christianity is a future event predicted by many Christians, often as an end time event. Some Christian groups consider the conversion of the Jews to be imperative and pressing and make it their mission to bring this about. However, since the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church has formally upheld Constitutio pro Judæis (Formal Statement on the Jews), which stated:

We decree that no Christian shall use violence to force them [the Jews] to be baptized, so long as they are unwilling and refuse. ...

Despite such papal declarations, personal, economic and cultural pressure on the Jews to convert persisted, often stirred by clerics. Persecution and forcible displacements of Jews occurred for many centuries, and were regarded as not inconsistent with the papal bull because there was no "violence to force baptism". There were occasional gestures to reconciliation. Pogroms and forcible conversions were common throughout Christian Europe, including organized violence, restrictive land ownership and professional lives, forcible relocation and ghettoization, mandatory dress codes, and at times humiliating actions and torture. The object often was for the Jews to choose between conversion, migration or dying. The Anglican Ministry Among Jewish People, founded in 1809, used non-coercive means in its outreach and missionary efforts.
A 2008 survey of American Christians by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found that over 60% of most denominations believe that Jews will receive eternal life after death alongside Christians
The biblical basis for this expectation is found in Romans 11:25–26:

I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved... (NIV).

The meaning of Romans 11:25-26a has been disputed. Douglas J. Moo calls Romans 11:26 "the storm center in the interpretation of Romans 9–11 and of New Testament teaching about the Jews and their future." Moo himself interprets the passage as predicting a "large-scale conversion of Jewish people at the end of this age" through "faith in the gospel of Jesus their Messiah".
Pope Benedict XVI in his book Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week (2011) has suggested that the church should not be targeting Jews for conversion efforts, since "Israel is in the hands of God, who will save it ‘as a whole’ at the proper time." - Conversion of the Jews

At the same time, there is the possibility that the two witnesses of the Apocalypse will come to the aid of the Jewish nation in the end times.

In the Book of Revelation, the two witnesses are two of God's prophets who are seen by John of Patmos, during the "Second woe" recorded in Revelation 11:1-14. They have been variously identified by theologians as two people, as two groups of people, or as two concepts. Dispensationalist Christians believe that the events described in the Book of Revelation will occur before and during the Second Coming. The two witnesses are never identified in the Christian Bible. Some believe they are Enoch and Elijah. as in the Gospel of Nicodemus, since they are the only two that did not see death as required by the Scriptures. Others believe them to be Moses and Elijah because they appeared during the transfiguration of Jesus, or because Enoch was not Abraham's descendant. Some also believe that they are Moses and Elijah due to the description of what they are to do. They have the power to shut the heavens (Elijah) and turn water into blood (Moses). - Two witnesses

What will be the result of the death of the Two Witnesses mentioned in the Book of Revelation? Perhaps nothing more than Israel’s true conversion to the Christian Faith.
If the Jews were in effect to be deceived by one of their own, God in his infinite mercy would send his Holy Prophets Elijah and Enoch to save the remnant of God’s Chosen People.

11 I was given a reed like a measuring rod and was told, “Go and measure the temple of God and the altar, with its worshipers. 2 But exclude the outer court; do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on the holy city for 42 months. 3 And I will appoint my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1,260 days, clothed in sackcloth.” 4 They are “the two olive trees” and the two lampstands, and “they stand before the Lord of the earth.” 5 If anyone tries to harm them, fire comes from their mouths and devours their enemies. This is how anyone who wants to harm them must die. 6 They have power to shut up the heavens so that it will not rain during the time they are prophesying; and they have power to turn the waters into blood and to strike the earth with every kind of plague as often as they want.
7 Now when they have finished their testimony, the beast that comes up from the Abyss will attack them, and overpower and kill them. 8 Their bodies will lie in the public square of the great city—which is figuratively called Sodom and Egypt—where also their Lord was crucified. 9 For three and a half days some from every people, tribe, language and nation will gaze on their bodies and refuse them burial. 10 The inhabitants of the earth will gloat over them and will celebrate by sending each other gifts, because these two prophets had tormented those who live on the earth.
11 But after the three and a half days the breath of life from God entered them, and they stood on their feet, and terror struck those who saw them. 12 Then they heard a loud voice from heaven saying to them, “Come up here.” And they went up to heaven in a cloud, while their enemies looked on.
13 At that very hour there was a severe earthquake and a tenth of the city collapsed. Seven thousand people were killed in the earthquake, and the survivors were terrified and gave glory to the God of heaven. - Revelation 11: 1-13


Did Jesus ever sing? I've been re-watching Jesus Christ Superstar recently and a thought sprang into my mind: did the real Jesus ever sing? I mean, are there any records to that effect in the Scriptures or elsewhere, perhaps, in apocryphal texts, Coptic texts, etc.

Yes. Matthew 26:30 and Mark 14:26 both state:

  When they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.

"They" here refers to Jesus and His disciples. It occurred immediately after The Last Supper.


What do we mean by person? In general, and as it applies to The Trinity, what do we mean by person.

Assuming that we say a person is "a rational being" or "an individual substance" of some sort, what attributes or qualities must the substance or being possess? Will? Intellect? Consciousness? Etc.

And when applied to the three persons of God, how do we reconcile the complexities of personhood with divine simplicity? Do we even mean the same "thing" in both the intra- and extra- God and contexts?

I had already written an answer to the question "What is a person?" on my Trinity group on another Christian forum. I'm copying-and-pasting my answer there with some additions.

The English word "person" is the equivalent of the Greek word πρόσωπον (prosōpon) and the Latin word persona.

Boethius defines the Greek word πρόσωπον and its Latin equivalent persona as "rationabile individuum," or "a rational individual."[1]

In the doctrine of the Trinity, we are accustomed to seeing the Greek word ὑπόστασις (hypostasis) rather than πρόσωπον.

However, these two words are synonyms and may be used interchangeably. Boethius writes,[2]

  Therefore, the Greeks called individual substances (substantias) «ὑπόστασις» since they substand (subsunt) the rest, and they are as if suppositums (suppositæ) and subjects (subjectæ) to certain accidents. Αnd for that reason we also call those substances (substantias), which they [call] «ὑποστάσεις», as if [they are] suppositums (suppositæ). Since they may also call those same substances (substantias), «πρόσωπα», we can likewise call them "persons" (personas).

A "person" is a rational individual. The English word "rational" means "having or exercising reason."[3] Therefore, a "person" is an individual who has or exercises reason. In Greek, the English word "reason" would be translated as λόγος (logos).

Boethius further defines what may be referred to as a "person." He writes,[4]

  Now from all the definitions we have given it is clear that "person"  (personam) cannot be affirmed of bodies which have no life (for no one ever said that a stone had a person), nor yet of living things which lack sense (for neither is there any person of a tree), nor finally of that which is bereft of mind and reason (ratione) (for there is no
  person of a horse or ox or any other of the animals which dumb and unreasoning live a life of sense alone), but we say there is a person of a man, of God, of an angel.

In conclusion, Boethius states that only a man, an angel, or God can be referred to as a "person" because only these possess "reason."

The doctrine of "divine simplicity" says that God is without parts. The doctrine of the Trinity does not contradict the doctrine of divine simplicity. Consider fire. "Fire" is what one would consider an ousia.

Aristotle wrote,[5]

  οὐσία λέγεται τά τε ἁπλᾶ σώματα, οἷον γῆ καὶ πῦρ καὶ ὕδωρ καὶ ὅσα τοιαῦτα, καὶ ὅλως
  σώματα καὶ τὰ ἐκ τούτων συνεστῶτα ζῷά τε καὶ δαιμόνια καὶ τὰ μόρια τούτων: ἅπαντα δὲ
  ταῦτα λέγεται οὐσία ὅτι οὐ καθ᾽ ὑποκειμένου λέγεται ἀλλὰ κατὰ τούτων τὰ ἄλλα.

which is translated by W. D. Ross as,

  We call 'substance' the simple bodies, i.e. earth and fire and water and everything of the sort, and in general bodies and the things composed of them, both animals and divine beings, and the parts of these. All these are called substance because they are not predicated of a subject but everything else is predicated of them.

Now, imagine a fire burning in a particular spot. Imagine now, that a man takes a stick and places it above the fire in order to spread the fire. So, holding it above the fire, the stick now catches on fire. The original fire did not diminish in intensity. It simply spread to another source.

Justin Martyr wrote,[6]

  ...since he was begotten of the Father by an act of will; just as we see happening among ourselves: for when we give out some word, we beget the word; yet not by abscission, so as to lessen the word [which remains] in us, when we give it out: and just as we see also happening in the case of a fire, which is not lessened when it has kindled [another], but remains the same; and that which has been kindled by it likewise appears to exist by itself, not diminishing that from which it was kindled.

θεός, what we translate as "God," is, like the word "man," both a reference to "substance" and "person."

Aristotle wrote,[7]

Οὐσία δέ ἐστιν ἡ κυριώτατά τε καὶ πρώτως καὶ μάλιστα λεγομένη, ἣ μήτε καθ' ὑποκειμένου
τινὸς λέγεται μήτε ἐν ὑποκειμένῳ τινί ἐστιν, οἷον ὁ τὶς ἄνθρωπος ἢ ὁ τὶς ἵππος. δεύτεραι δὲ οὐσίαι λέγονται, ἐν οἷς εἴδεσιν αἱ πρώτως οὐσίαι λεγόμεναι ὑπάρχουσιν, ταῦτά τε καὶ τὰ τῶν εἰδῶν τούτων γένη οἷον ὁ τὶς ἄνθρωπος ἐν εἴδει μὲν ὑπάρχει τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ, γένος δὲ τοῦ
εἴδους ἐστὶ τὸ ζῷον δεύτεραι οὖν αὗται λέγονται οὐσίαι, οἷον ὅ τε ἄνθρωπος καὶ τὸ
ζῷον.

which W. D. Ross translates as,

  Substance (οὐσία), in the truest and primary and most definite sense of the word, is that which is neither predicable of a subject nor present in a subject; for instance, the individual man or horse. But in a secondary sense those things are called substances
  within which, as species, the primary substances are included; also those which, as genera, include the species. For instance, the individual man is included in the species 'man', and the genus to which the species belongs is 'animal'; these, therefore that is to say, the species 'man' (ἀνθρώπῳ) and the genus 'animal' (ζῷον), are termed secondary substances.

John of Damascus wrote,[8]

  Now we have often said already that essence is one thing and subsistence another, and that essence signifies the common and general form of subsistences of the same kind, such as "God," "man," while subsistence marks the individual, that is to say, "Father," "Son," "Holy Spirit," or "Peter," "Paul." Observe, then, that the names, divinity and humanity, denote essences or natures: while the names, "God" and "man," are applied both in connection with natures, as when we say that God is incomprehensible essence, and that God is one, and with reference to subsistences, that which is more specific having the name of the more general applied to it, as when the Scripture says, Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee, or again, There was a certain man in the land of Uz, for it was only to Job that reference was made.

So, the Son shares the same essence "God" that the Father has. There is no dimunition of nature when the Father begat His only-begotten Son, just as the strength and quality of the fire is not diminished when another object is kindled. The essence of God remains simple and undivided. The Son does not possess 1/3 of the essence, and the Father another 1/3, but each shares the full and perfect essence of God, undiminished and uncompound.

Footnotes:

[1] Boethius. Liber De Persona Et Duabus Naturis Contra Eutychen Et Nestorium, Ch. III.

[2] Ibid.

[3] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rational?s=t

[4] Boethius. Liber De Persona Et Duabus Naturis Contra Eutychen Et Nestorium, Ch. II.

[5] Aristotle. Metaphysics, 1080β.

[6] Justin Martyr. Dialogue with Trypho, Ch. LXI.

[7] Aristotle. Categories, §5, 2a.

[8] John of Damascus. Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book III, Ch. IV.


Did only Jesus human body remain in the grave for the three days? Jesus told the thief at Calvary :

  Luke 23:43  And Jesus said to him, "Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise."

And yet he was not resurrected until after the Sabbath. So were the Souls and Spirits of both taken to Paradise that day while their physical bodies remained ?

Using only biblical texts and/or established traditions of the Nicene church, is there a consensus or even a limited set of positions on where Jesus' spirit was?

"Using only biblical texts and/or established traditions of the Nicene
church, is there a consensus or even a limited set of positions on
where Jesus' spirit was?"

It is not clear that Nicene Council was considering this particular subject.  It seemed they were more hard pressed to establish a good date for celebrating Easter. Consult ref. below:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea The First Council of Nicaea (/naɪˈsiːə/; Greek: Νίκαια [ˈni:kaɪja];
  Turkish: Iznik) was a council of Christian bishops convened in Nicaea
  in Bithynia by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in AD 325. This first
  ecumenical council was the first effort to attain consensus in the
  church through an assembly representing all of Christendom.[5]

  Its main accomplishments were settlement of the Christological issue
  of the nature of the Son of God and his relationship to God the
  Father,3 the construction of the first part of the Creed of Nicaea,
  establishing uniform observance of the date of Easter,[6] and
  promulgation of early canon law.

  Misconceptions Biblical canon Main article: Development of the
  Christian biblical canon

  A number of erroneous views have been stated regarding the council's
  role in establishing the biblical canon. In fact, there is no record
  of any discussion of the biblical canon at the council at all.[66] The
  development of the biblical canon took centuries, and was nearly
  complete (with exceptions known as the Antilegomena, written texts
  whose authenticity or value is disputed) by the time the Muratorian
  fragment was written.[67]

  In 331 Constantine commissioned fifty Bibles for the Church of
  Constantinople, but little else is known (in fact, it is not even
  certain whether his request was for fifty copies of the entire Old and
  New Testaments, only the New Testament, or merely the Gospels), and it
  is doubtful that this request provided motivation for canon lists as
  is sometimes speculated. In Jerome's Prologue to Judith[68] he claims
  that the Book of Judith was "found by the Nicene Council to have been
  counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures".

From John 20:17 we do know that Jesus had not ascended to the Father preceding the 3rd day after crucifixion.

  John 20:17 NIV Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not
  yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them,
  ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your
  God.’ ”

Luke 23:43 lets us know that wherever else he might have gone on day one, he was at the very least in paradise.

Benson [Benson Commentary] has an excellent commentary on the subject and you may find it of use.  With this partial quote from the text:

  "...That he was going, not only to αδης, the invisible world, but to
  that part of it termed paradise (my markup). His human soul was
  removing to the place of separate souls; not to the place of the
  damned, but to the place of the blessed...."


What is the purpose of attending the mass and going to Confession? (My curiosity is going to cost me my reputation again. Anyway, here it goes...)

In Catholicism, how important is attending the mass, going to Confession and other liturgical rituals?

Do these activities have anything to do with getting to Heaven or Salvation?

Why do they have to participate in these activities?

Are they doing these things because

They are saved?
They want to be saved and they want go to Heaven?
They are pious?
They want to preserve the tradition?
They do it because others are doing it?

As far as why individual Catholics participate in the various liturgies and sacraments, there can be all sorts of reasons, from the highly religious to the merely social or cultural. The Church does have teachings on the subject, though; let's look at those.

As far as going to Mass on Sundays (and some other days): This is a requirement for Catholics. In its discussion of the third commandment ("Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy"), the Catechism says:

  The celebration of Sunday observes the moral commandment inscribed by nature in the human heart to render to God an outward, visible, public, and regular worship "as a sign of his universal beneficence to all." Sunday worship fulfills the moral command of the Old Covenant, taking up its rhythm and spirit in the weekly celebration of the Creator and Redeemer of his people.

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 2176)

  Sunday, on which by apostolic tradition the paschal mystery is celebrated, must be observed in the universal Church as the primordial holy day of obligation. The following days must also be observed: the Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Epiphany, the Ascension, the Body and Blood of Christ, Holy Mary the Mother of God, her Immaculate Conception, her Assumption, Saint Joseph, Saint Peter and Saint Paul the Apostles, and All Saints.

(Code of Canon Law, Canon 1246, Section 1)

These additional days are often casually called "holy days of obligation". The Code of Canon Law goes on to lay out certain circumstances in which these days need not be observed, or may be observed on the closest Sunday.

One goes to Mass to worship God, but also to receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist, around which the Mass is centered. Catholics must receive the Eucharist at least once a year (preferably during the Easter season, see canon 920), and it's recommended to receive every time you go to Mass:

  It is in keeping with the very meaning of the Eucharist that the faithful, if they have the required dispositions, receive communion when they participate in the Mass.

(Catechism, paragraph 1388)

"If they have the required dispositions" refers to the fact that Catholics are required to fast for an hour before receiving the Eucharist, and that it is considered a mortal sin to receive if one is already in a state of mortal sin.

Thus, the Church requires people to go to Mass at least on every Sunday, and to receive the Eucharist there if possible, as a way to keep fresh in their heart the need to regularly and visibly worship God. For a Catholic to deliberately fail to go to Mass on a holy day of obligation (including Sundays) is, in the view of the Church, to break the third commandment—a mortal sin. Like all mortal sins, if not confessed, this omission does indeed have the potential to prevent the Catholic from entering Heaven:

  If [a mortal sin] is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back.

(Catechism, paragraph 1861)

Similarly, going to Confession is necessary insofar as one has committed a mortal sin, for just this reason: if mortal sins are not confessed, they will exclude a person from Heaven.

The Church considers Confession very important for this reason, and requires the faithful (after reaching the "age of discretion"; that is, the age at which they're considered old enough to understand the consequences of their actions) to confess their sins at least once a year:

  After having reached the age of discretion, each member of the faithful is obliged to confess faithfully his or her grave sins at least once a year.

(Code of Canon Law, canon 989)

This is a purely ecclesiastical law, not a divine law; still, to deliberately flout this rule is not a good thing.

One of the other sacraments you don't mention is baptism. This is certainly required by the Catholic Church; indeed, it's the way that Catholics become Catholics, and it's necessary for reception of any of the other sacraments. Baptism (by water; the Church teaches that there are other sorts of baptism) is the usual and customary way by which people are justified before God; it is necessary for salvation:

  The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. ... Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit."

(Catechism, paragraph 1257)

The other sacraments (Confirmation, Holy Orders, Matrimony, Anointing of the Sick) are not required for salvation; although Confirmation in particular is recommended for adult Catholics, and is required for participation in some of the other sacraments.


"You must use the psalms of the day at Sext" - why? I've recently taken to praying the Liturgy of the Hours using the Universalis program. This is fabulous in all kinds of ways. Today, however, I found something that I didn't understand.

Normally at the daytime offices (Terce, Sext, None) you can choose whether to say the psalms of the day or the complementary psalms (which are always the same). Today, however, there is an instruction at the psalms for Terce and None:

  SPECIAL FOR TODAY: If you are celebrating Sext today, you must use the psalms of the day at Sext, and use the complementary psalms now.

There is a similar instruction on Wednesday, but this time the psalms of the day are to be used at None  instead.

Why are there these specific instructions about which sets of psalms to use on these certain occasions?

I alerted Martin Kochanski, the author of Universalis, to this question, and he's written a blog post specially for it, to which readers are referred.

The simple answer is: on certain days in the four-week cycle, the Breviary has a small and slightly obscure rubric whose effect is that the complementary psalms aren't allowed at a certain daytime Hour.
No reason is ever given, but when I was programming Universalis I finally managed to work it out. On those days, some of the complementary psalms in question appear in one of the main Hours. For instance, on Monday of the third week of the four-week cycle, Psalm 70(71) is recited at Vespers. Psalm 70(71) is also one of the complementary psalms for Sext — so, to avoid repetition, the Breviary says "don't use the complementary psalms at Sext".

Similar things can happen at Lauds with the Invitatory psalm, and even in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, where some psalms which are alternatives to canticles are prohibited where they occur in the ordinary course of reciting the psalter.


Was "eye for an eye" law in the O.T. imperative or only permissive? Was "eye for an eye" law in the O.T. permissive or imperative in its nature?

What I mean here is that if somebody took my eye in that time and I were one of the Israelites, then I could have taken his eye too in an act of revenge, and later I would have no feeling of guilt as according to the law it would have meant that I had acted righteously, i.e. according to the law.

However, what if I failed to act in that way (for example, I was physically very weak and I just couldn't go to my offender and take his eye, or let's say I was simply a coward), would it be then considered that I didn't act according to the law? Would I then be considered a violator of the law? If not, then this law is only permissive, if yes, then the law is imperative.

The Lex Talionis was actually restrictive in it's nature. The remarkable thing about the law was that it set a maximum punishment, equal to the damage inflicted. In contrast, prior laws had said the equivalent of "a life for an eye." It was quite remarkable that limitations were being placed on revenge. This was not an imperative, but a restriction on the one demanding vengeance.
To answer you question, no it did not demand that an equal punishment be meted out if the victim did not desire the punishment be inflicted. Instead, it was saying, the victim may not demand any more than this.
The case law cited draws it out:

 20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.
 22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

That women were property, for instance, would have been taken for granted. That a man might be put to death for killing someone's property is rather progressive for it's day.
Note also, it is the court here that is in charge- not the aggrieved party. If the victim did not wish the court to act, the court was obliged to do so. If the husband makes no demand, there is no case.
Indeed, the concept of judicial mercy itself was rather unique, and was developed over the course of the OT.  The prophets over time called out for mercy. To hear the God of the Bible saying things like, "Vengenance is mine (I.e not yours!) says the Lord" is remarkable progression.
Additionally, unlike, say, even the Code of Hammurabi, Leviticus is clear that the principle is to apply regardless of social class. In contrast, the Hammurabi Code, while having the same principle, was clear that this didn't apply, for example, if a master plucked out his slave's eye. (The slave might be freed, but there was no such thing as equal compensation)


Fasting in Daniel 10, What is going on? Cyrus king of Persia revealed to Daniel that something bad was happening. He fasted and did the whole 9-yards for 3 weeks. My question is, what happened afterwards? He obviously was super tired and lack of energy, but Daniel saw a Vision, and I presume this was Jesus.

What really happened? Did Daniel fasted this intensely to get His attention?

The person who appears to Daniel in chapter 10 is an unnamed angel - a messenger not Jesus.   Michael the Archangel,(Good name there!) is mentioned as assisting him, and while angels attended to Jesus, they would not have been needed to tip the scales in a fight. Jesus would have only needed to speak a word, and the demons would be bound.

Daniel is aware that he must be in prayer and fasting, but the connection to Michael is unknown.

What we do know, from verses 12 - 14 is this:

  Then he continued, “Do not be afraid, Daniel. Since the first day that you set your mind to gain understanding and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard, and I have come in response to them. But the prince of the Persian kingdom resisted me twenty-one days. Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, because I was detained there with the king of Persia. Now I have come to explain to you what will happen to your people in the future, for the vision concerns a time yet to come.

Since we know that the Devil is "the prince of the power of the air," and that there "powers and principalities" in the demonic realm.  Many have suggested that each ethne (a people group or nation-state) has their corresponding demonic prince.  If that is the case, then what delays Michael is this demonic ruler of the Persian peoples, preventing the prophet from receiving the message.

We know this can't be a human detaining the angel, because either an angel or a demon could easily overpower a human - clearly there is some demonic force preventing the angelos from delivering his message.

So, was it needed for Daniel to be fasting the whole time?  In so far as Daniel's praying and fasting was a perquisite for the dream, we can safely say No, because:

a. There is no evidence that human prayer affects angels in any way (Angels are merely messengers of God)
b. There is no evidence that God requires prayers to work some magic - to assume otherwise is to make God contingent upon us. While it may get God's attention, it does not compel him to act or in any way affect his ability to effect what he desired. Having gotten his attention, God dispatches Michael to clear the impasse
c. There is evidence that demons are subdued in the power of Jesus's name, but not that we are responsible. (In Acts 19:15, the demons admit they know Jesus, and know of Paul - but they are completely baffled by some people who think they can control the demons speaking.)

Why then was Daniel was it important for Daniel to attend to prayer and fasting then?

The simple answer is, it was preparing Daniel for the message, even as Michael is being detained.


The Tyranny of the Weaker Brother The Bible has a couple of sections talking about responsibility to the "weaker brother", primarily 1 Corinthians 8 and Romans 14. Both ask someone stronger in their faith, who is not disturbed by something like eating food sacrificed to idols, to forgo it if it'll offend a brother or sister weaker in their faith.  I think it's fairly obvious to say that this concept applied past the scope of eating into general behavior, and it's a commonly accepted principle in most American mainline traditions.

The problem is, it's been my experience that there are some Christian somewhere who are offended by anything, as you are all probably realizing given the Q&A on this Stack Exchange. I've known Christians against Halloween, against Christmas, against instrumental music, against worship on Sunday, against evolution, against creationism and so on.

When you deal with larger, more diverse groups, like you tend to meet in Internet-based Christian communities, there's always a weaker brother offended by some belief or practice of yours. Needless to say, there are also people "offended" by mutually contradictory beliefs or practices.

Unfortunately, many of them like to use the weaker brother scriptures to justify why you should behave differently. It's effectively the "you shouldn't do anything I don't like" argument, or at least "you shouldn't speak out about having a belief different than mine on this subject."

How does one handle the "weaker brother" issue?  How does it not become carte blanche for people of a controlling mindset to not manipulate you into behaving the way they think you ought?

How do you deal with these attempts at bullying?

Example

Here, in the spirit of how SE should work, I'll provide a specific time I faced this behavior, with the caveat that this question is not about this specific issue;  please don't give your personal opinions on its morality (open another question for that if you really want to).

I am a Christian, and play role-playing games (and am a mod on RPG.SE).

I had been involved in an online Christian RPG group, the Christian Gamers Guild, back in the day. There were no end of people coming by and saying that from a weaker brother perspective, that a) we shouldn't play those games, b) those games are OK but not if they have magic or various gods in them, c) are OK as long as they're not Dungeons & Dragons, d) are only OK if they have an explicitly Christian theme, e) are only OK if they don't have Christianity in them (because that puts the gamemaster in the place of God) and so on, in manifold and often contradictory glory.  Some were drive-bys, but others were group members who were offended by others' gaming preferences.

Because of this and tolerance for other essentially insane behavior (e.g. tolerance for extremely disruptive and inappropriate behavior in the name of forgiveness), I decided that it was easiest to just not participate in the group, problem solved.

But of course it's against the spirit of Christian community to just avoid all churches and social groups, or, I think, to be seriously cagey about all details of your life and beliefs because someone in that group won't like it and be "offended" and "stumble," right?

First off... I think this is an excellent question, here's my try at an answer...

Romans 14:3, I believe, balances out both sides.

The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them.

I know a person who thinks celebrating holidays or birthdays is wrong, and putting up Christmas trees is wrong, etc. I am cool with him, and he doesn't try to ever prove that I am wrong if I celebrate these things. And what I do in return is make sure I don't throw a birthday party for him, because that's me being sensitive to his beliefs.

Also, I think it's key to denote the difference between offend and stumble. Because this scripture was used to make sure we don't flaunt our freedom to the point where it causes someone else to fall into sin... and it is sin for them because they may do it even though they think it is a sin. (But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin. Romans 14:23)

If a person clearly is NOT going to stumble, but is just being offended because they don't do something you do, then I am not so sure that "weaker brother" argument applies.

Here's an example that I think applies... if my friend (who doesn't celebrate stuff) says, "man when christmas comes I used to get so focused on the gifts, trees, etc, and I forgot about God, so I made a decision to remove it and not celebrate it." Then I would say... I understand Christmas became an idol to you, therefore it is good for you, if it helps you not to sin. Therefore, I can honor that. Basically, I am accommodating him, so that he won't stumble into sin.

I do believe that's our job as Christians is to accommodate the person who may be weaker in an area that you're strong in.

An example in scripture....

Looking at Acts 16:3 - Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

Paul here circumcised Timothy because of the Jews in that area, which really meant Paul didn't want them getting hung up on circumcision, because he wanted them to hear the Gospel without them being offended.

This is a choice made by Paul to "be all things to all men so that some may be saved" (1 Cor 9:22). Because Paul could have easily told them "in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love." Gal 5:6

(In the spirit of Galatians, I do think at times people's law driven beliefs can be sinful, hence why Paul rebukes the Galatians)

We don't have to live in a box because of someone else's beliefs, but at the same time we can't merely enjoy our freedoms without consideration for others' true weaknesses either.


What verse in the Bible talks about bad people preaching the gospel being a good thing? Some time ago I read this verse about greedy people who announce the gospel because of their own greed, which is a bad thing, but it ends up that this is a good thing because more people will hear about Jesus.

I can't tell if the verse says exactly this, but I'm pretty sure that is something very likely. Can someone help me?

From what you've said, i can almost certainly say this is Philippians 1:18

  But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice. Yes, and I will continue to rejoice (Philippians 1:18 NVI)

This passage's context is pretty much like what you've read: bad people preaching isn't bad at all, God can use them to reach a good purpose.

But it is not about greedy people, you read in verse 15 that he is talking about people who preach out of "envy and rivalry". But the essence is quite the same.


What is the corruption Mormons believe will infect their church before the second coming? Doctrine & Covenants 112:23-26 reads (emphasis mine):

Verily, verily, I say unto you, darkness covereth the earth, and gross darkness the minds of the people, and all flesh has become corrupt before my face.  Behold, vengeance cometh speedily upon the inhabitants of the earth, a day of wrath, a day of burning, a day of desolation, of weeping, of mourning, and of lamentation; and as a whirlwind it shall come upon all the face of the earth, saith the Lord.
And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord; first among those among you, saith the Lord, who have professed to know my name and have not known me, and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house, saith the Lord.

If I read this prophecy correctly, everyone on earth has become corrupted (or unclean, see 1 Nephi 10:21, etc.) including members of the LDS Church, that this corruption will be the justification for vengeance, and that vengeance will begin with the Church and then proceed to the rest of the Earth.
Which, to simplify, sounds like the Lord will clean His house1 before He cleanses the world.
What do the scriptures2 and/or Church leaders suggest is the corruption the Lord is speaking about?

1 This revelation was received in 1837, after the 1836 dedication of the Kirtland temple.  It could be argued that "house" refers specifically to the Kirtland temple, or temples in general.  However, setting aside the fact that the LDS Church no longer owns the Kirtland temple and presupposing the Lord had more in mind that a single geographical location when discussing the need to cleanse people from sin, I'm electing to interpret "My house" as "My church."  If scripture or Church leaders suggest otherwise, I'm open to correction.
2 The LDS Scriptures include the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine & Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.

This part of this revelation speaks about 2 things: Darkness and corruption and Vengeance.  This part of section 112 is not taking about corruption in the church today, it's talking about the state of the world when the church was organized. It is not a prophecy about the spreading of corruption in the church, rather the coming of judgement to the world.

Darkness and Corruption

Regarding the darkness and corruption, Joseph Fielding Smith clarified this as referring to the spiritual darkness and corruption that existed at the time of the revelation:

  "This proclamation should cause us even in this day serious
  reflection. If darkness covered the earth in 1837, surely it has
  deepened in its blackness since that day. If that was a day of
  wickedness, and the Lord in several revelations testified to this
  fact, then it is even more so today." [Church History and Modern
  Revelation, 2:74]

We know that after the death of Christ, the apostles and the church were persecuted and killed to the point where there would be a "famine of the word," Amos 8:11, see Preach My Gospel. This loss of spiritual light, and the revelation from the living prophets left a void of which God declared,

  "all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those
  professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their
  lips, but their hearts are far from me" JSH 1:19

Vengeance

Without the fullness of the law, however, the Lord does not hold men accountable,

  "He will judge them, not according to what they have not, but
  according to what they have" Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith Ch. 35

So when the Lord speaks of vengeance going forth from his house, it refers to the restoration of the gospel in this dispensation:

  "...it is a dispensation in which the Gospel has been revealed from
  heaven, the servants of God called to labor in the vineyard for the
  last time, and in which the Lord intends to
  pour out great and terrible judgments upon the nations of the wicked
  after they have been warned by the sound of the everlasting
  Gospel." - [Latter-Day Judgments. Discourse by Elder Orson Pratt,
  delivered in the 13th Ward Assembly Rooms, Salt Lake City, Sunday
  Afternoon, January 26, 1873.]

Naturally, the first to receive these judgements would begin with the first to reject the restored gospel:

  25 And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go
  forth, saith the Lord;

  26 First among those among you, saith the Lord, who have professed to
  know my name and have not known me, and have blasphemed against me in
  the midst of my house, saith the Lord.

This behavior matches the definition of personal apostasy: "turning away from the Church and ultimately denying the faith.." Teachings of President Brigham Young

  What do the scriptures and/or Church leaders suggest is the
  corruption the Lord is speaking about?

Elder Claudio D. Zivic in a talk titled Avoiding Personal Apostasy, mentioned a few things that this could include (though surely not exhaustive):

When a person commits serious sin but does not repent
Conflicts between Church members, which includes being offended by leaders and other members.
Faultfinding, including beginning to think one could make better decisions than our leaders
Assuming authority one does not possess or when one seeks revelation for a stewardship outside of their sphere of responsibility


What does the Catholic church say about its own presence or absence when the tribulation starts? Simply the question: What, if anything, does the Catholic Church teach about its existence at the time of the tribulation?

The Catholic Church (CC) believes Christ already reigns on earth through her.  She does not believe in a future rapture at the time of or immediateely preceeding the tribulation and then a 1,000 year millenial reign of Christ.

Some view the idea of tribulation is that it preceeds the millenial reign of Christ for the 1,000 years.  The Catholic Church believes Christ already reigns (through the Catholic Church); there won't be some separate reign when Christ Himself is present on earth. To be clear, she believes in the second coming, but what happens thereafter has nothing to do with the view of a tribulation apart from believers who might be raptured.

  669 As Lord, Christ is also head of the Church, which is his Body. Taken up to heaven and glorified after he had thus fully accomplished his mission, Christ dwells on earth in his Church. The redemption is the source of the authority that Christ, by virtue of the Holy Spirit, exercises over the Church. "The kingdom of Christ [is] already present in mystery", "on earth, the seed and the beginning of the kingdom".
  -CCC-

  671 Though already present in his Church, Christ's reign is nevertheless yet to be fulfilled "with power and great glory" by the King's return to earth. This reign is still under attack by the evil powers, even though they have been defeated definitively by Christ's Passover. Until everything is subject to him, "until there be realized new heavens and a new earth in which justice dwells, the pilgrim Church, in her sacraments and institutions, which belong to this present age, carries the mark of this world which will pass, and she herself takes her place among the creatures which groan and travail yet and await the revelation of the sons of God." That is why Christians pray, above all in the Eucharist, to hasten Christ's return by saying to him: Marana tha! "Our Lord, come!"
  -ibid-

So, to answer the OP, the Catholic Church is looking for a "final trial", but one in which she remains present, rather than raptured.  She believes we are already in the millenial reign, but Christ will return.

  675 Before Christ's second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the "mystery of iniquity" in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.


Do any Christian traditions intentionally use the name  'Yahweh'? It seems that few Christians deliberatly use the term 'Yahweh', yet it is a cultural norm that using peoples real names shows some level of appreciation and honor.

Are there any Christian traditions that do take the standard cultural view and use 'Yahweh' specifically in order to better honor the name?

Also are there any Christian traditions that specifically forbid its use and how do their doctrines on the use of his name relate to respecting God?

In Jewish tradition, speaking the name was forbidden because it was so holy that people didn't dare speak it.   This has been the case for centuries.

In essence, the idea has two aspects.  First, it was a sign of respect, and reverence for the word, that it should not pass through unclean lips.  Second, it was a fear of accidentally taking the Lord's name in vain.

There's a related question here that sheds more light on this in greater detail.  it covers a question from the Catholic perspective, but traces back to the Jewish traditions.

This article states it nicely:

  The avoidance of the original name of God both in speech and, to a
  certain extent, in the Bible was due, according to Geiger
  ("Urschrift," p. 262), to a reverence which shrank from the utterance
  of the Sublime Name; and it may well be that such a reluctance first
  arose in a foreign, and hence in an "unclean" land, very possibly,
  therefore, in Babylonia. According to Dalman (l.c. pp. 66 et seq.),
  the Rabbis forbade the utterance of the Tetragrammaton, to guard
  against desecration of the Sacred Name; but such an ordinance could
  not have been effectual unless it had met with popular approval.

Read more: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=165&letter=T#ixzz1aWpOisHS

In other words, the traditional view is that using the name is less respectful.  This would be the view I'd take, given the reverence that God expects from us when approaching Him.

Certainly, there are Christian groups that feel the opposite.  A Google search for "don't speak the name Yahweh" returned a plethora of sites from various groups that hold that not using the name is disrespectful, and even sinful.

Some prefer to use the name because they believe out of a fear that using the words "God" and "Jesus" mean that we're referring to someone else, and almost equate using any name other than the originals at idolatry.  http://newlifeonahomestead.com/2011/02/why-say-yahweh-instead-of-god-and-why-yeshua-instead-of-jesus/

Others (like this one) come to the conclusion that the meaning of God's name indicates that we are God. (That's sort of the opposite of Christianity, thought, so I don't think it counts as a "Christian" perspective.)


What is the biblical basis to say it is the duty of every minister to know his congregation? There seems to be two possible ways that a preacher can feed their flock.  One, they can be inspired by God to preach sermons that give people exactly what they need in due season without ever realizing the sermon just fits the needs of the church. Two, they really get to know each person in the congregation and develop a clear understanding what their needs are to preach sermons that match what they can see.

My question is, what is the biblical basis that a preacher must engage the members getting to know them and their thoughts, rather than just bury himself in theological study and prayer barely knowing his congregation?

My opinion is to look at the life of Paul.

Paul's ministry was the largest and covered a wide geographical area. He met many different people along the way, many towns and cities. When I read the epistles of Paul, I'm surprised to see how well he remembered the believers from different corners of the region and his intimate relationship with them. In most of his letters, at the end, Paul included greetings to the church members by name and their activities that he remembered. I think this indicates how well Paul knew his church members. Here is an example.

  Romans 16  (NIV)

  [....]

  6 Greet Mary, who worked very hard for you.

  7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison
  with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in
  Christ before I was.

  8 Greet Ampliatus, my dear friend in the Lord.

  9 Greet Urbanus, our co-worker in Christ, and my dear friend Stachys.

  10 Greet Apelles, whose fidelity to Christ has stood the test.
  Greet those who belong to the household of Aristobulus.

  11 Greet Herodion, my fellow Jew.
  Greet those in the household of Narcissus who are in the Lord.

  12 Greet Tryphena and Tryphosa, those women who work hard in the Lord.
  Greet my dear friend Persis, another woman who has worked very hard in
  the Lord.

  13 Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord, and his mother, who has been a
  mother to me, too.

  14 Greet Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas and the other
  brothers and sisters with them.

  15 Greet Philologus, Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas and all
  the Lord’s people who are with them.

  [.....]

Conclusion: Inspiration from God is the most important factor for delivering effective sermons and additionally, it is also important for the minister to know the state of his sheep and have an intimate relationship with them, just as Paul did with his church members.


How can Saint Thomas Christians who are Catholic have confidence that St. Thomas sailed to Muziris? This question is addressed to Saint Thomas Christians that are Catholic. Since the Catholic church rejects the authenticity of both the Gospel of Thomas and the Acts of Thomas, how can anyone in the Catholic segment of that faith say with confidence that Thomas sailed from the Red Sea to the port city of Muziris in 52 AD?

Both the Gospel of Thomas and the Acts of Thomas are considered apocrypha by the Catholic Church and as such are not deemed to be part of the deposit of faith.

No one can say with absolute confidence that St Thomas sailed to Muziris, India in 52 AD. Nevertheless both tradition and legend in this domain are believed by many of St Thomas Christians. Their belief in this matter should be considered more of a popular belief than a absolute truth.

What we do know is "that about the year A.D. 46 a king was reigning over that part of Asia south of Himalayas now represented by Afghanistan, Baluchistan, the Punjab, and Sind, who bore the name Gondophernes or Guduphara. This we know both from the discovery of coins, some of the Parthian type with Greek legends, others of the Indian types with the legends in an Indian dialect in Kharoshthi characters. Despite sundry minor variations the identity of the name with the Gundafor of the "Acta Thomae" is unmistakable and is hardly disputed." -
Catholic Encyclopedia

"Though the tradition that St. Thomas preached in "India" was widely spread in both East and West and is to be found in such writers as Ephraem Syrus, Ambrose, Paulinus, Jerome, and, later Gregory of Tours and others, still it is difficult to discover any adequate support for the long-accepted belief that St. Thomas pushed his missionary journeys as far south as Mylapore, not far from Madras, and there suffered martyrdom. In that region is still to be found a granite bas-relief cross with a Pahlavi (ancient Persian) inscription dating from the seventh century, and the tradition that it was here that St. Thomas laid down his life is locally very strong. Certain it is also that on the Malabar or west coast of southern India a body of Christians still exists using a form of Syriac for its liturgical language. Whether this Church dates from the time of St. Thomas the Apostle (there was a Syro-Chaldean bishop John "from India and Persia" who assisted at the Council of Nicea in 325) or whether the Gospel was first preached there in 345 owing to the Persian persecution under Shapur (or Sapor), or whether the Syrian missionaries who accompanied a certain Thomas Cana penetrated to the Malabar coast about the year 745 seems difficult to determine." - Catholic Encyclopedia


Why did Joseph Smith return the golden plates to the angel to be buried? As I understand LDS teaching, an angel--perhaps Moroni--showed Joseph Smith the place where plates of gold had been hidden for many centuries.  He retrieved these tablets of gold and translated the Book of Mormon from them.  However, after he completed his translation, he was instructed to return the gold plates to the angel and bury them.

So, the tablets were created by mankind, written by mankind, read by mankind, stored by mankind, hidden by mankind, recovered and then translated for mankind.  After all this time, however, these plates of gold are buried again.

So, what reason is given as to why God would all of a sudden want this record to be buried?

First, to clarify, the ancient record was recorded on plates, bound by rings, not on tablets. I've never seen official or first-person historical sources refer to them as tablets and have only seen that term used in sources which have either strong or subtle sentiments against the Mormon church, or a political agenda. From every reliable source I have ever seen, plates is the proper term. (The distinction is important because the Book of Mormon was actually a book, not a slate. Tablets are not plates. Plates are thin, light, and can be bound together. Tablets are like what the 10 Commandments or Hammurabi's Code were written on... the plates were bound into a codex.)
Joseph was instructed from the beginning to the end that the plates held a very singular purpose: to bring to light great truths which were otherwise lost. From Joseph Smith—History, Joseph Smith was warned not to use the plates for gain.

46 By this time, so deep were the impressions made on my mind, that sleep had fled from my eyes, and I lay overwhelmed in astonishment at what I had both seen and heard. But what was my surprise when again I beheld the same messenger at my bedside, and heard him rehearse or repeat over again to me the same things as before; and added a caution to me, telling me that Satan would try to tempt me (in consequence of the indigent circumstances of my father’s family), to get the plates for the purpose of getting rich. This he forbade me, saying that I must have no other object in view in getting the plates but to glorify God, and must not be influenced by any other motive than that of building his kingdom; otherwise I could not get them.

As for the follow-up question, pondering on "the street value of the gold" actually caused delay in the Restoration process and Joseph was punished for entertaining the thought (see heading: "Joseph Smith—History 1:50–53. Joseph’s First Visit to the Hill Cumorah):

“As Joseph approached the Hill Cumorah, he had thoughts about the poverty of his family and the possibility that the plates or the popularity of the translation would produce enough wealth to ‘raise him above a level with the common earthly fortunes of his fellow men, and relieve his family from want’ [Oliver Cowdery, in Messenger and Advocate, July 1835, 157]. When he reached down for the plates he received a shock and was thus prevented from taking them out of the box. Twice more he tried and was thrown back. In frustration he cried out, ‘Why can I not obtain this book?’ Moroni appeared and told him it was because he had not kept the commandments but had yielded to the temptations of Satan to obtain the plates for riches instead of having his eye single to the glory of God as he had been commanded [Cowdery, in Messenger and Advocate, Oct. 1835, 198].
“Repentant, Joseph humbly sought the Lord in prayer and was filled with the Spirit. A vision was opened to him, and the ‘glory of the Lord shone round about and rested upon him. … He beheld the prince of darkness. … The heavenly messenger [Moroni] said, “All this is shown, the good and the evil, the holy and impure, the glory of God and the power of darkness, that you may know hereafter the two powers and never be influenced or overcome by that wicked one.” … You now see why you could not obtain this record; that the commandment was strict, and that if ever these sacred things are obtained they must be by prayer and faithfulness in obeying the Lord. They are not deposited here for the sake of accumulating gain and wealth for the glory of this world: they were sealed by the prayer of faith, and because of the knowledge which they contain they are of no worth among the children of men, only for their knowledge’ [Cowdery, in Messenger and Advocate, Oct. 1835, 198]. Moroni concluded by warning Joseph that he would not be allowed to obtain the plates ‘until he had learned to keep the commandments of God—not only till he was willing but able to do it’ [in Lucy Mack Smith, History of Joseph Smith, 81; italics added]” (Church History in the Fulness of Times, 40–41)

And the fate of the plates?
It has not been mentioned that the plates were then buried. Rather:

When, according to arrangements, the messenger called for them, I delivered them up to him; and he has them in his charge until this day, being the second day of May, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-eight.

So to answer the question... why did he return the plates? Because he was commanded to do so. Why? We're not entirely sure... the Lord does mention that He would try the faith of His people:

6 And now there cannot be written in this book even a hundredth part of the things which Jesus did truly teach unto the people;
7 But behold the plates of Nephi do contain the more part of the things which he taught the people.
8 And these things have I written, which are a lesser part of the things which he taught the people; and I have written them to the intent that they may be brought again unto this people, from the Gentiles, according to the words which Jesus hath spoken.
9 And when they shall have received this, which is expedient that they should have first, to try their faith, and if it shall so be that they shall believe these things then shall the greater things be made manifest unto them.
10 And if it so be that they will not believe these things, then shall the greater things be withheld from them, unto their condemnation.
11 Behold, I was about to write them, all which were engraven upon the plates of Nephi, but the Lord forbade it, saying: I will try the faith of my people.

And to answer the next question from your comment, both the Large and Small Plates (which were concatenated by Mormon) were full, so Joseph Smith could have written no more on them:
Omni 1 (small plates)

30 And I, Amaleki, had a brother, who also went with them; and I have not since known concerning them. And I am about to lie down in my grave; and these plates are full. And I make an end of my speaking.

Mormon 8 (large plates)

5 Behold, my father hath made this record, and he hath written the intent thereof. And behold, I would write it also if I had room upon the plates, but I have not; and ore I have none, for I am alone. My father hath been slain in battle, and all my kinsfolk, and I have not friends nor whither to go; and how long the Lord will suffer that I may live I know not.


Acts 6:8 - Stephen is described as "full of grace" (πλήρης χάριτος) In Acts 6:8, according to some manuscripts the Greek text states,

  Στέφανος δὲ πλήρης χάριτος καὶ δυνάμεως ἐποίει τέρατα καὶ σημεῖα μεγάλα ἐν τῷ λαῷ. (NA28)

which is translated by the NABRE into English as,

  Now Stephen, filled with grace and power, was working great wonders and signs among the people.

The Greek πλήρης χάριτος literally means "full of grace" (cp. John 1:14). In the Vulgate, St. Jerome translated that Greek phrase into Latin as plenus gratia, the equivalent of gratia plena in Luke 1:28, the only exception being plenus declined in the masculine gender referring to Stephen and plena being declined in the feminine gender referring to Mary (and the word order which is inconsequential).

That being said, it is reasoned by Catholics that the virgin Mary was sinless because she is gratia plena, "full of grace." Can it be also said of Stephen that he, like Mary, was born without original sin and that he also never sinned, since he too is described as being plenus gratia? Why or why not?

In case of Mary, the angel refers to her, as you have said, as one who has been filled with grace, and the church teaches that she received a special grace at her conception which allowed her to be born free of the effects of original sin. This grace did not preserve her from sin, per se, but this grace made it possible and so she continued in her cooperation with the will of God throughout her life. The infusion of grace she received was an application of the grace won by Christ on the cross, as Christ's merits are eternal and are not restricted only to points in time after his crucifixion and resurrection.

In the case of Stephen, the church does not claim that he was sinless in its doctrine. You are correct, however, that the phrase is referring to the same phenomenon: a radical infilling of grace. Because Stephen was a deacon, we can be sure that he would have been a baptized member of he church, as Christ commanded in Matthew 28:19 and was full of the Holy Spirit. Being full of the Holy Spirit is one of the apostles' criteria for selecting deacons (Acts 6:3). Catholics attribute Stephen's having been filled with grace to his baptism, since baptism confers grace, remits all past sin, regenerates us, cleanses us from original sin, and causes us to be born again of water and the Spirit.

So while Mary was free from the effects of original sin at every point in her life, tephen, unlike Mary, was not free from the effects of original sin prior to his baptism. In other words, there was no point in Mary's life where her ability to remain obedient to God was impaired by the effects of original sin. Moreover, Mary was sinless because she continued to say yes to the will of God throughout her life, and her unswerving obedience gave her the freedom and ability to obey.

Likewise, the baptized person today is freed from sin and put into a new relationship with God through the grace of baptism, as Romans 6:4:7 states:

  Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so
  that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the
  Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have become
  united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also
  be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old
  self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be
  done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; for he
  who has died is freed from sin.

... And verse 14 states:

  For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but
  under grace.

In conclusion, Stephen's being full of grace (πλήρης χάριτος, which literally means “full of grace”) was not the same as Mary's being full of grace (κεχαριτωμήνη--kecharitomene, which means “she who has been graced”). This slight difference in the two expressions indicates that Mary never sinned but that Stephen, unlike Mary, was not free from sin.


Did Augustine teach sola fide? It is popularly taught that the reformers declared five distinctive elements of theology that differentiated them from Rome: salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, for the glory of God alone, as sufficiently taught in Scripture alone. They quoted the church fathers in support of their views to demonstrate that they weren't teaching novelties or heresies and they showed particular deference to Augustine. But did Augustine actually teach the doctrine described in the five solas?

No.

Well, at least this appears to be Martin Luther's answer

  Augustine has sometimes erred and is not to be trusted. Although good
  and holy, he was yet lacking in the true faith, as well as the other
  fathers...But when the door was opended for me in Paul, so that I
  understood what justification by faith is, it was all over with
  Augustine. (Luther's Works 54, 49)

  It was Augustine's view that the law...if the Holy Spirit assists, the
  works of the law do justify...I reply by saying "No". (Luther's Works
  54, 10)

As to your statement about the popular belief that the reformers (and their descendants) frequently quoted a plethora of Church Fathers to demonstrate the legitimacy of their doctrine...

This is simply not true. Augustine is for the most part the only Church Father cited by Luther and Calvin.  The early reformers relied virtually entirely upon Scripture to formulate doctrine.

Reference: Calvin


Is Satan capable of love? Is Satan capable of love?
It does not matter what name we give to the leader of the fallen angels: Satan, Lucifer or the Devil. What I desire to know is if the leader of the fallen angels, commonly known as Satan is genuinely capable of love?
For this question, I desire an overview of what various Christian denominations teach (defined or undefined, official or unofficial) on this subject matter, such as Catholicism, Orthodox, Lutheranism, Anglicanism, etc.

For a Catholic perspective, Pope Francis, who talks about Satan as much as he talks about anything else says that Satan does not know how to love.

The second attitude is that of Herodias, the wife of the king’s brother. “The Gospel says that she ‘hated’ John” because he spoke with clarity. And, the Holy Father continued, “we know that hatred is capable of anything”. Indeed, “hatred is the breath of Satan”, who does not know how to love”. Herodias “had the satanic spirit of hatred”.
http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/cotidie/2019/documents/papa-francesco-cotidie_20190208_greatgift-ofmartyrdom.html

If you don't know how to do a thing, it doesn't mean you're not capable, it just means you're not apt to do it.

A reformed perspective is more pragmatic, playing a little loose with the word love:

It makes sense that Luther would have such a strong experiential knowledge of the devil, for Satan loves nothing more than to attack the gospel, and Luther was at the forefront of the greatest recovery of the gospel
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/our-enemy-devil/

So Satan, if he does love, he loves doing evil.  The meaning of the word love in that case would be about the basest possible meaning of love that I don't even know how it qualifies.

I don't believe that the Orthodox have a particularly extensive demonology department, which is probably to their credit! It might be hard to find an answer there.


Can you be Christian while wishing death upon another? As an American on 9/11 I wanted death to come to all who planned or contributed to the attacks. As a Christian, I felt conflicted. Should I be feeling this anger? Am I right in thinking that Osama bin Laden should be killed? As well as brought to justice.

As a Christian should I have these views? Or should I leave it up to God to handle, to decide whether he should die or live?

First of all, this is definitely something that should be left to God. A great example is in Jude:

  Jude 1:9 (NLT)

  9 But even Michael, one of the mightiest of the angels, did not dare accuse the devil of blasphemy, but simply said, “The Lord rebuke you!” (This took place when Michael was arguing with the devil about Moses’ body.)

Satan is certainly the evilest being in existence, but even Michael left Satan's punishment up to God.

Also, consider these verses in Romans:

  Romans 12:19-20 (NLT)

   19 Dear friends, never take revenge. Leave that to the righteous anger of God. For the Scriptures say,
     “I will take revenge;
        I will pay them back,”
        says the Lord.
   20 Instead,
     “If your enemies are hungry, feed them.
        If they are thirsty, give them something to drink.
     In doing this, you will heap
        burning coals of shame on their heads.”

Again, leave it to God. He can do it way better than we can.

Also, instead of hating our enemies, we are called to love them instead.

  Matthew 5:44 (NLT)

  44 But I say, love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you!

That being said...when the current event was Osama's death, a few of my Christian friends (and I) said that while they had not wished for Osama's death nor were they happy about the death itself, they were glad that Osama had been removed from his position at the head of Al Qaeda.


Why do the later versions of the Book of Mormon contain added phrases that seem to change the nature of Christ? The original 1830  Book of Mormon contained statements to the effect that "Jesus Christ is God the Eternal Father" in three separate places (1 Nephi 11:21, 32, 13:40, source). Only recently did I discover that all later printings have this statement edited. I verified this fact with cover and page photos on the 1830 Book of Mormon website. Translation of the plates was claimed to be inspired, and when complete it was confirmed by God to be correct.

The official LDS view was that in 1837 the Book of Mormon was "versified" from paragraph form for convenience and corrected only in grammar and spelling. Why then was this statement edited by adding three words in the 1837 (and subsequent) editions to read "Jesus Christ is the Son of God the Eternal Father" thus changing its meaning in those same three places?

1 Nephi 11:21:

Full page

1 Nephi 11:32:

Full page

Read 1 Nephi 11:21, 32 on LDS.org.

1 Ne. 13:40:

Full page

Read 1 Nephi 13:40 on LDS.org.

See other pages from the original 1830 edition.

Why did Joseph Smith change those verses? For clarity.

The December 1983 edition of the LDS-published Ensign magazine included the article Understanding Textual Changes in the Book of Mormon. The article addresses several types of changes including the specific ones asked about by the OP.

  In a few places, however, Joseph Smith did intentionally add to the
  text to clarify a point. An illustration of this is the added words
  the son of in 1 Nephi 11:21, 32, and 13:40. The text would be correct with or without the additional
  words, but the addition helps the reader avoid misunderstanding.

Eternal Father is a term that can correctly refer to Jesus Christ in contexts such as father of the church (1 Corinthians 4:15, Mosiah 15:11) and father of the creation (Helaman 14:12).

Apparently Joseph Smith, as translator of the Book of Mormon, wanted to clarify that those verses were speaking of Jesus Christ and not Christ's Father. It wasn't a change of doctrine but a change to avert misinterpretation.

For further reading, see this article.