How to reconcile God telling Jeremiah to preach to people that won't listen while also saying not to cast your pearls before swine God tells Jeremiah to preach to people that will not listen:

  Jeremiah 7:2,27 NIV - Stand at the gate of the Lord’s house and there proclaim this message...[long message]...When you tell them all this, they will not listen to you; when you call to them, they will not answer.

Later on in biblical history, Jesus, whom Christians believe to be God, tells his crowd to not waste words on people that won't listen:

  Matthew 7:6 NIV - Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.

What's an overview of Christian responses to how these two things can coexist without contradiction?

TL;DR -- Context lets them coexist without contradiction.

The longer version:

God's word to Jeremiah in the first passage represented specific instructions for a specific mission.  At the base level of common sense, it would be a mistake to interpret those instructions as any kind of a generalized principle -- any more than God's word to Noah means that we're all commanded to build arks.

In contrast, Jesus' words state a general principle for His followers -- one that we should follow, barring any strong reasons to the contrary.  (One thing to keep in mind for example: how can a human being know whether the person he's speaking to is a "dog"?  Unless God steps in by the power of the Holy Spirit to give insight into a person's heart & character, we humans can only judge by our limited and faulty impressions of an outward appearance.)

The only consistent rule in biblical morality is complete obedience to God's will, whatever it may be at any given moment.  God can and does give us basic moral rules and principles, but ultimately we are bound to follow His every command, even if it goes against one of those general moral rules/principles.  One example would be the general prohibition against killing (Genesis 9:6, Exodus 20:13), which had exceptions for cases such as warfare (e.g. Joshua 6 and the destruction of Jericho).


Has ever a lunatic locked up in a insane asylum/psych ward converted to Christianity after having their soundness of mind miraculously restored? Are there any published testimonies of individuals that were sent to lunatic asylums or psychiatric wards as "lost causes" due to severe mental illness, that eventually converted to Christianity after having their soundness of mind miraculously restored?
Or in simpler terms: has ever a lunatic in an insane asylum/psych ward had an unexpected spontaneous recovery that led to their conversion to Christianity?

After some searching, I managed to find some relatively recent anecdotes. As a disclaimer, I want to make clear right away that I'm not aware of any medical records or other kinds of supportive evidence for these testimonies. I'm just sharing what these individuals claim to have experienced, and each one is free to either take their word for it or remain skeptic.
1) God Helped Me Escape Insane Asylum! | Gary Whetstone
Very briefly, the story goes as follows: Gary was a successful and high-achieving student up until ninth grade, where he had a terrible car accident that severely impaired his physical health and destroyed all his sport-related dreams. He turned to drugs and hanging out with drug addict friends as an escape, his mental health heavily deteriorated, he began to hear voices and eventually broke into a house and tried to assault a woman and her husband. He was sent to an insane asylum, got locked up in an isolation ward, was about to be subjected to an experimental lobotomy type surgery that had always resulted in the patient's death, when suddenly a pastor visited him, prayed for him, the power of God fell over him, he totally recovered his mental sanity, and God's voice even guided him out of the isolation ward and the mental institution (sort of like Paul leaving the jail). There are many more details, and I highly encourage the reader to watch the full testimony.
2) Anointed Candy Bar Deliverance Case – R W Schambach
The video's description has a very eloquent summary:

Testimony starts at 2 min mark on the video. Anointed candy bar delivers woman who had been in an insane asylum for 30 years.
Acts 19:11-12 states:
“ And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul:
So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them.”

3) Insane Asylum (True Story)- B.H. Clendennen
Summary: a 76 year old woman approached Bertrand H. Clendennen and told him that God had told her that he was the one to pray for his husband to get healed. The catch: her husband had been in an insane asylum for years, with severe loss of memory (probably Alzheimer), couldn't even sit down on his own, etc. Bertrand visited the man, prayed for him and left. Very soon they received a phone call with the news: the 76 year old woman's husband was completely healed and on his way to meet them (the man had been released from the insane asylum).


Does the Catholic Church quote any saying of Jesus to which His question in John 14:2 can be attributed? In John 14:2 we hear Jesus saying:  "... My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you? "

I am not able to connect the said words of Jesus to any of His saying in the earlier chapters of John.  In other words,  Jesus does not appear to have promised  his disciples that He would be going to prepare a place for them, prior to His saying at John 14:2, nor is the Evangelist adding a remark from his side explaining that Jesus had said so at such and such time. In fact, John 14 seems to have an abrupt beginning.

My question is: does the Catholic Church quote any saying of Jesus to which His question to the disciples in John 14:2 can be attributed?

This is not exactly a direct answer to your question, but I don't think there is that much support for translating the verse as a question.  I say this, however, acknowledging that there are translations that are approved by the Roman Catholic and/or Eastern Orthodox Church that show it this way (e.g. RSV, RSVCE, NAB).
The oldest manuscripts were not punctuated, so modern translators have incredible discretion in how they can choose to interpret a verse.  In any case, the way this verse was understood by the Greek Church in antiquity was more along the lines of:

In My Father's house are many abodes; otherwise I would have told you.
I go to prepare a place for you.

(I am using the Orthodox New Testament translation).  There is no question implied.
John Chrysostom (4th century Byzantine), a respected Father of both the eastern and western Church (he is a Doctor of the Roman Catholic Church), clearly understands the verse in the above sense, as he comments:

In My Father's house are many mansions
As He comforteth Peter when bewilderedby saying, "but thou shalt
follow afterwards," so also He gives this glimpse of hope to the
others. For lest they should think that the promise was given to him
alone, He saith, In My Father's house are many mansions.
If it were not so I would have said to you, I go to prepare a place for you.
That is, "The same place which receiveth Peter shall receive you." For
a great abundance of dwellings is there, and it may not be said that
they need preparation.
Homily LXXIII on John

This is consistent with how the verse appears in the Clementine Vulgate, and as rendered by the Douay-Rheims translation:

In domo Patris mei mansiones multæ sunt; si quominus dixissem vobis:
quia vado parare vobis locum.
In my Father’s house there are many mansions. If not, I would have told you: because I go to prepare a place for you.

Other sources that I could find in the ANF/NPNF series that discuss or include the entire verse were a translation of the Syriac Diatesseron and Augustine's Tractate LXVIII on the Gospel of John.  Neither of these, from what I can tell from the context, understand the verse as a question. (The aforementioned can both be found online at ccel.org).
The semi-official Greek text of the Eastern Orthodox Church is the 1904 Patriarchal Text, which does not indicate a question:

ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ τοῦ πατρός μου μοναὶ πολλαί εἰσιν·  εἰ δὲ μή, εἶπον
ἂν ὑμῖν·  πορεύομαι ἑτοιμάσαι τόπον ὑμῖν·

(The punctuation for a question mark is ";", which does not appear)


What is the puropse of the other choirs of angels? There are nine choirs of angels: Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones, Dominions, Virtues, Powers, Archangels, Principalities, and Angels.  What do the Thrones, Dominions, Virtues, Powers, and Principalities do?  Are they just in heaven praising God, or do they have some special function in the universe?

The choirs tend to be considered part of the extra-Biblical tradition of the Catholic church, with some attributes derived from historical Judaism.  While I'd always recommend Aquinas, if you're just curious in an overview, I'd highly recommend our friends over at Catholic Online:

http://www.catholic.org/saints/angels/angelchoir.php

The nature of the choirs seems, to me, to be a way for the fundamentally limited human mind to understand something of the nature of heaven, perfect, and the presence of God.  You asked specifically about Thrones, Dominions, Virtues, Powers, and Principalities so I'll delve into those a bit:

Thrones are a relay between some of the other orders of angels and God.  They epitomize humility.

Dominions are a relay from God to some of the other orders of angels.  They epitomize regulation.

Together, Thrones and Dominions provide communication to and from God.

Virtues control the elements.

Powers are the professional warrior class.

Principalities are, in my opinion, a complete theological hornet's nest.  They seem to exist to demonstrate the supremacy of Jesus but are pretty difficult to explain in a single line.  You might want to read up on them in greater detail on your own.

Of course, this is just one interpretation, you may also want to check out Wikipedia's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_angelic_hierarchy) or track down the verses in question yourself.

Or, of course, you can throw up your hands and just read Aquinas.  The Summa is an immensely rewarding read and I highly recommend it.


Does the Orthodox church ever condone violence on an individual level? This post made me wonder. Is it true the Orthodox church thinks violence is always sinful no matter the circumstances? If so, in what manner do Orthodox Christians respond to personal violence? For example, I have two small children at home. If someone tried to break in and assault them, does the Orthodox church say I should not intervene?

I enjoy practicing martial arts because I aspire to be able to defend myself and others compassionately (without causing serious or permanent harm) and am very interested to know if the Orthodox church would consider this a waste of time or worse as the Protestants with which I am familiar certainly do not.

This post made me wonder. Is it true the Orthodox church thinks violence is always sinful no matter the circumstances?

The violence in very most cases includes the anger, and hatred to the target of violence, lets say enemy. So that are the reasons why the violence in bad. I said very most because we know the case of the violence without a sin: And the Jews’ passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem, And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables. John 2:13-15.

  If someone tried to break in and assault them, does the Orthodox church say I should not intervene?

But I have brought the reason why the violence is allowed, that is defence of weak, or your family, or even in some cases yourself (if your family will be destructed buy the reason), because that the all are inclusive in Christ's saying : Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. John 15:13. That is the difference (as far as I know) to most of the protestants doctrines.

  I enjoy practicing martial arts because I aspire to be able to defend myself and others compassionately (without causing serious or permanent harm) and am very interested to know if the Orthodox church would consider this a waste of time or worse as the Protestants with which I am familiar certainly do not.

The time waste is also always bad, but the reasons by which we choose wheither the deal is the time waste or not, differs to protestant reasons. If we consider exactly martial arts, I believe they just can be treated as a neutral deal, non-good, non-bad, but when you choose in which case apply the art in your life it becomes bad or good, and good not because it is good in itself, but it becomes good because, not to apply it for that case is worse. For example to defend weak man, etc. And as an example of that how to be a man who take himself in martial arts we have the famouse fighter Fedor Emeljanenko, and he is the orthodox man.


According to Calvinism, is it possible to believe in predestination, yet reject Christ? This question is different from: Do Calvinists believe that it is possible to be saved without believing the doctrine of predestination?

One asks "Does A => B?" the other asks "Does B => A" ?

Given:

  Revelation 22:18–19 (KJV)
  18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

I'm very hesitant to argue about salvation apart from "believing in Jesus"

Now, intuitively, it seems to me that it's very hard to believe in the doctrine of election without believing in Jesus. However,

  James 2:18–19 (KJV)
  18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. 19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

In this sense, even demons intellectually believe in the doctrine of predestination, yet it does them no good – thus perhaps there is the possibility that humans can intellectually believe in the doctrine of predestination, yet somehow not believe in Christ.

Anyway – these are my conflicted thoughts. Insights?

It is a bit unclear in the question, but I believe what you are asking is essentially, "Can a person be so theologically informed as to believe in predestination, and yet not be truly saved?"

The answer to this is absolutely, yes.  Academic assent to God's existence or to various doctrines does not imply an authentic salvation.  Authentic salvation is characterized by a commitment and surrender of one's life to Christ as Lord and Saviour.  It is quite possible to subscribe to something academically, and not commit one's life to Christ.  The passage you quoted from James illustrates this, as does this passage:

  Matthew 7:21-23 (ESV)
  21   “Not everyone who  says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will  enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who  does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22   On that day  many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not  prophesy in your name, and cast out demons  in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23   And then will I declare to them, ‘I  never knew you;  depart from me,  you workers of lawlessness.’

When someone commits his life to Christ, he is sealed by the Holy Spirit, and the evidence of this is a changed life.


What is specified complexity? I've read several summaries of William Dembski's concept of specified complexity, including one by Dembski himself, and I've got to confess I have no idea what he is talking about.

Is it an attempt to prove God's existence mathematically?

It's an attempt to show that the universe, and all it contains, is too orderly to have originated by chance with no intelligent guiding force.  It simply implies an intelligent Creator, not necessarily the God of the Bible.

In short, it's an argument for creationism, without naming the Creator explicitly, which is what Intelligent Design is.

It's not so much an attempt to prove his existence mathematically, it is, (depending on which side of the fence you sit on) more of:

using mathematics to imply His existence

or

use mathematics to show how His existence is implied by the evidence around us.


What test is used to determine communicability of an attribute of God I understand that some attributes of God are said to be communicable, meaning that they can, in some measure, be attributes of men as well. For example, God's holiness is said to be communicable because our holiness is derived from his, as in Lev 11:45 "Be holy, for I am holy." (ESV). God's aseity, on the other hand, could not be attributed to humans, as we are created by him.

Many other attributes, however, seem to be more of a gray area for me. For example, one might mark "knowledge" as communicable, or perhaps omniscience as incommunicable. How does one determine whether an attribute of God is communicable or incommunicable?

The attributes that are speaking of his deity are clearly not communicable.  You mention his aseity.  I also point to his eternal nature.

However, the attributes that are bound to his personality are communicalbe.  For example, grace and love can be found in us.

We have to be careful though to note that while these attributes of God's can be transferred to us, it is actually God in us that brings about these attributes.

See also:  Attributes of God


Is there an explanation in Catholicism as to why it was the Son and not the others of the Blessed Trinity to become man and be crucified for our sake? According to Catholic faith and theology, once God decreed to save mankind, redemption would be by the work of God-made-man.

  For us men and for our salvation,
  he came down from heaven:
  [...]
  and became man.
  For our sake he was
  crucified. - The Nicene Creed.

And

  But God decided that man should be shown mercy and be pardoned. His
  mercy was to be above all His works; and He also decreed that this
  mercy and pardon were to be granted because of the full satisfaction
  of justice by adequate atonement. Hence it became necessary that One
  of the Trinity assume created nature and in that nature offer
  reparation to God for man's great sin. - Library: The theology of
  the Precious Blood | Catholic Culture.

Within Catholicism is there an explanation of why it was the Son and not the Father or the Holy Spirit who for us men and our salvation became man and was crucified?

St. Thomas Aquinas addresses this question in Summa Theologica III q. 3 a. 8 ("Whether it was more fitting that the Person of the Son rather than any other Divine Person should assume human nature?") c.:

It was most fitting that the Person of the Son should become incarnate. First, on the part of the union; for such as are similar are fittingly united. Now the Person of the Son, Who is the Word of God, has a certain common agreement with all creatures, because the word of the craftsman, i.e. his concept, is an exemplar likeness of whatever is made by him. Hence the Word of God, Who is His eternal concept, is the exemplar likeness of all creatures. And therefore as creatures are established in their proper species, though movably, by the participation of this likeness, so by the non-participated and personal union of the Word with a creature, it was fitting that the creature should be restored in order to its eternal and unchangeable perfection; for the craftsman by the intelligible form of his art, whereby he fashioned his handiwork, restores it when it has fallen into ruin. Moreover, He has a particular agreement with human nature, since the Word is a concept of the eternal Wisdom, from Whom all man's wisdom is derived. And hence man is perfected in wisdom (which is his proper perfection, as he is rational) by participating the Word of God, as the disciple is instructed by receiving the word of his master. Hence it is said (Ecclus. 1:5): "The Word of God on high is the fountain of wisdom." And hence for the consummate perfection of man it was fitting that the very Word of God should be personally united to human nature.
Secondly, the reason of this fitness may be taken from the end of the union, which is the fulfilling of predestination, i.e. of such as are preordained to the heavenly inheritance, which is bestowed only on sons, according to Rm. 8:17: "If sons, heirs also." Hence it was fitting that by Him Who is the natural Son, men should share this likeness of sonship by adoption, as the Apostle says in the same chapter (Rm. 8:29): "For whom He foreknew, He also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of His Son."
Thirdly, the reason for this fitness may be taken from the sin of our first parent, for which the Incarnation supplied the remedy. For the first man sinned by seeking knowledge, as is plain from the words of the serpent, promising to man the knowledge of good and evil. Hence it was fitting that by the Word of true knowledge man might be led back to God, having wandered from God through an inordinate thirst for knowledge.

The objections to the question and St. Thomas's replies are interesting, too.


Is there a Christian basis for using garlic, crosses, and holy water against evil? In popular culture, it is believed that holy objects, such as garlic, crosses, and holy water, can protect against evil, like vampires. Also, Caleb's response to this question inspired me to ask whether or not using those things (garlic, crosses, and holy water) have any legitimate basis in Christian practice, or whether or not they are merely idols and only part of the fictional world.

In Catholic Tradition and culture, vampires only exist in scary novels/movies, and garlic is only used for seasoning delicious meals.

However, crosses, holy water, and various other holy objects and gestures can be ordained by the Church as sacramentals.

Sacramentals are material objects, things or actions (sacramentalia) set apart or blessed by the Roman and Eastern Catholic Churches, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Church of the East, the Anglican Churches, the Independent and Old Catholic Churches, and the Lutheran Churches to manifest the respect due to the sacraments, and so to excite pious thoughts and to increase devotion, and through these movements of the heart to remit venial sin, according to the Council of Trent (Session XXII, 15).

Sacramentals are sacred signs which bear a resemblance to the sacraments. They signify effects, particularly of a spiritual nature, which are obtained through the intercession of the Church. By them men are disposed to receive the chief effect of the sacraments, and various occasions in life are rendered holy.

  The characteristics of sacramentals

  Sacramentals are instituted for the sanctification of certain
  ministries of the Church, certain states of life, a great variety of
  circumstances in Christian life, and the use of many things helpful to
  man. In accordance with bishops' pastoral decisions, they can also
  respond to the needs, culture, and special history of the Christian
  people of a particular region or time. They always include a prayer,
  often accompanied by a specific sign, such as the laying on of hands,
  the sign of the cross, or the sprinkling of holy water (which recalls
  Baptism).

  Sacramentals derive from the baptismal priesthood: every baptized
  person is called to be a "blessing," and to bless. Hence lay people
  may preside at certain blessings; the more a blessing concerns
  ecclesial and sacramental life, the more is its administration
  reserved to the ordained ministry (bishops, priests, or deacons).

  Sacramentals do not confer the grace of the Holy Spirit in the way
  that the sacraments do, but by the Church's prayer, they prepare us to
  receive grace and dispose us to cooperate with it. "For well-disposed
  members of the faithful, the liturgy of the sacraments and
  sacramentals sanctifies almost every event of their lives with the
  divine grace which flows from the Paschal mystery of the Passion,
  Death, and Resurrection of Christ. From this source all sacraments and
  sacramentals draw their power. There is scarcely any proper use of
  material things which cannot be thus directed toward the
  sanctification of men and the praise of God." (CCC 1668-1670)

The Rituale Romanum clearly defines the order in which a priest or deacon may bless a sacramental. Sacramentals such as crosses, holy water, and blessings are employed during most rituals in the Catholic Church.  These rituals range anything from Baptism (which itself is a protective exorcism) to weddings to demonic exorcisms.

About exorcisms...

Yes, the Catholic Church performs hundreds of real exorcisms every year. Demonic possession in the Church is very real, and sacramentals have been used since apostolic times to battle evil spirits.

But don't be fooled by over-blown Hollywood concoctions of "head-spinning" myths and "green vomit" superstitions about how the Catholic Church supposedly performs exorcisms.

The most realistic and accurate portrayal one will find of how the Catholic Church performs the rite of exorcism is The Rite with Anthony Hopkins.

  When the Church asks publicly and authoritatively in the name of Jesus
  Christ that a person or object be protected against the power of the
  Evil One and withdrawn from his dominion, it is called exorcism. Jesus
  performed exorcisms and from him the Church has received the power and
  office of exorcizing. In a simple form, exorcism is performed at the
  celebration of Baptism. The solemn exorcism, called "a major
  exorcism," can be performed only by a priest and with the permission
  of the bishop. The priest must proceed with prudence, strictly
  observing the rules established by the Church. Exorcism is directed at
  the expulsion of demons or to the liberation from demonic possession
  through the spiritual authority which Jesus entrusted to his Church.
  Illness, especially psychological illness, is a very different matter;
  treating this is the concern of medical science. Therefore, before an
  exorcism is performed, it is important to ascertain that one is
  dealing with the presence of the Evil One, and not an illness. (CCC
  1673)

The Catholic Encyclopedia says about sacramentals:

  One of the most remarkable effects of sacramentals is the virtue to
  drive away evil spirits whose mysterious and baleful operations affect
  sometimes the physical activity of man. To combat this occult power
  the Church has recourse to exorcism and sacramentals. Another effect
  is the delivery of the soul from sin and the penalties therefor. Thus
  in the blessing of a cross the Church asks that this sacred sign may
  receive the heavenly blessing in order that all those who kneel before
  it and implore the Divine Majesty may be granted great compunction and
  a general pardon of faults committed.

Its important to recognize that sacramentals, such as crosses and holy water, are not magical.  They are not idols.  They are simply material objects that are connected to the heart of the Church (the 7 sacraments instituted by Christ) via the ordaining power of the Holy Spirit and are entrusted to the priesthood of all believers for both edification and protection.

All sacramentals draw their power from Jesus Christ...who is God.

And from my personal experience, garlic is only effectively used when its sprinkled on buttered toast.


Is there any evidence to support the claim that the Apostle St. Peter founded the Church in Antioch and, if so, what are the implications? According to tradition, the Apostle Peter founded the Church in Antioch in A.D. 34 and is regarded as the first Bishop of Antioch.  Here are a few extracts from  sources I found regarding this claim:

  Peter preached the Gospel in Judea, founded the Church of Antioch and finally came to Rome... St. Peter traditionally is regarded as the leader of the Twelve Disciples of Jesus... In the course of his missionary journeys, Peter founded the Church in Antioch, where the followers of Jesus were first called Christians. St. Peter is regarded by the Church as the first Bishop of Antioch, and the present-day Patriarch of Antioch is his successor in that Apostolic See. - Saints Peter and Paul

  Church tradition maintains that the See of Antioch was founded by Saint Peter the Apostle in A.D. 34... It was the resolution of this conflict [male circumcision] at the Council of Jerusalem under Saint James the Apostle that determined the direction of the Antiochian mission to the Gentiles, and the dynamic nature of that Christian community in its missionary outreach. - The Patriarchate of Antioch: Founded by Saints Peter and Paul

  Patriarch of Antioch is a traditional title held by the Bishop of Antioch (founded by Saint Peter). As the traditional "overseer" (ἐπίσκοπος, episkopos, from which the word bishop is derived) of the first gentile Christian community, the position has been of prime importance in the church from its earliest period. This diocese is one of the few for which the names of its bishops from the apostolic beginnings have been preserved...  According to church tradition, this ancient Patriarchate was founded by the Apostle Saint Peter. - Patriarch of Antioch (Wikipedia)

Apparently Ignatius was bishop of Antioch (martyred under Emperor Trajan circa A.D. 110)

Theophilus was bishop of Antioch (A.D. 169-183)

Serapion was bishop of Antioch (A.D. 190-203)

Is there any substantive evidence to support the claim by the Antiochian Orthodox Church that the apostle Peter founded their church?  And, if so, what are the implications with regard to the Roman Catholic Church claiming Peter founded their church in Rome?

Interesting question akin to did Peter found the church at Rome.  Historical evidence of either is scant, but here is Eusebius and Schaff's commentary.  For Eusebius, Evodius was first bishop, followed by Ignatius.

  At this time Ignatius was known as the second bishop of Antioch, Evodius having been the first.
  -source-

And commentary:

  738    We cannot doubt that the earliest tradition made Evodius first bishop of Antioch, for otherwise we could not explain the insertion of his name before the great name of Ignatius. The tendency would be, of course, to connect Ignatius directly with the apostles, and to make him the first bishop. This tendency is seen in Athanasius and Chrysostom, who do not mention Evodius at all; also in the Apost. Const. VII. 46, where, however, it is said that Evodius was ordained by Peter, and Ignatius by Paul (as in the parallel case of Clement of Rome). The fact that the name of Evodius appears here shows that the tradition that he was the first bishop seemed to the author too old and too strong to be set aside. Origen (in Luc. Hom. VI.) is an indirect witness to the episcopacy of Evodius, since he makes Ignatius the second, and not the first, bishop of Antioch. As to the respective dates of the early bishops of Antioch, we know nothing certain. On their chronology, see Harnack, Die Zeit des Ignatius, and cf. Salmon’s article Evodius, in Smith and Wace’s Dict. of Christ. Biog.
  -ibid-

So, according to the Apostolic Constitutions Book VII P 46, the claim is that Evodius was first bishop, but who was appointed as such by Peter.

  Of Antioch, Euodius [Evodius], ordained by me Peter; and Ignatius by Paul.
  -source-

The sense is not necessarily that Peter lived for years in Antioch, but rather visited and established his successor Evodius, the first bishop.

Implications of this tradition of Peter founding the church at Antioch?  It depends on one's interpretation of the well discussed "upon this rock" being either Peter or his confession.  If one believes the rock refers to Peter, then we have competing claims as to which church that might be; that is, either the one sourcing to Antioch or Rome or even Jerusalem.  If one believes the rock refers to one's confession of faith in Christ, then it basically does not matter the location of where Peter roamed, but rather just the facts that he and the other apostles did carry the gospel, the good news, message outward from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth.


Why did Jesus tell his disciples to buy swords? Why did Jesus tell his disciples to buy swords? Was he suggesting they be warriors like the ancient Israelites?

  “But now,” he said, “take your money and a traveler’s bag. And if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one! (Luke 22:36, NLT)

In the following verse Jesus mentions another prophecy to be fulfilled:

  Luke 22:37: For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.

A transgressor is, by definition:

  One who transgresses; one who breaks a law, or violates a command; one who violates any known rule or principle of rectitude; a sinner

Now here is where it becomes more a matter of opinion:

It is clear that, at least in our current day case, that interfering with the law is in fact a crime. Here we have two illustrations of that - first, the Apostles with Jesus are not yet saved since Jesus had not yet been crucified, so they were still sinners - and transgressors of the Law passed down by Moses from God. Second, they were interfering in Jesus' arrest and Peter attacked a guard. So that makes then transgressors of the law as by man.

So we see here a fulfillment of the prophecy Jesus mentioned in verse 37, as both spiritually and man-made sense the Apostles would be transgressors.


What does modern scholarship conclude about the shape of the cross and the method of crucifixion? I have seen a couple of articles that explain how the commonly depicted image of Jesus on the cross is not historically accurate nor physically possible.

Roman Crucifixion Methods Reveal the History of Crucifixion
Was Jesus Crucified in the Manner Shown in Paintings and Movies?

What does modern Biblical scholarship conclude about the shape of the cross and the method of crucifixion? Is there a broad consensus?

The Alexamenos Graffito - "Alexamenos worships his god".

Someone decided to mock Alexamenos with some graffiti at the Palatine Hill.  Christians, especially in the first and second centuries, were accused of worshipping a donkey, which is called "Onolatry".  Tertullian writes about this with reference to Christians.  Google "onolatry" and "Tertullian" to see what you get.  The point is, this picture is clearly intended to represent someone with a donkey's head being crucified with arms outstretched.  It is intended as an insulting parody of our Lord Jesus Christ.

  And set up over his head his accusation written THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.  (Matthew 27:37).

As David Reid amongst others has pointed out, if it had been a stake then the inscription would have been put "above his hands" and not "above his head".

Again David Reid says that usually JWs portray a single nail going through both hands. But we read in John's Gospel that Thomas said:

  Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails (John 20:25).

So there couldn't have been a single nail going through both hands.


What are common ways for contemporary Christians to fast? Which ingredients are being left out? (Besides meat, maybe spices? How about salt?) Are there different fasting dishes / cooking approaches in the various denominations?

In Orthodox Christianity, fasting is vegan (no meat, no dairy, no egg, basically nothing of animal origin). And no alcohol (that means avoiding vinegar, as well).

Monks and nuns (and some of the more fervent Christians) do it the proper, old way - vegan and without using oil (like olive or sunflower oil, for example).

Another aspect to take in consideration is avoiding a lot of food - one can fall in gluttony with vegan food as well, and that's not fasting anymore.

But more important than the food fasting is the fasting for the soul:

don't eat human flesh (don't argue with people, don't think bad of people, don't judge people, forgive everyone, be merciful towards everyone)
fasting with our eyes (turn your head the other way when you see an attractive person)
fasting with our legs (avoid going to sinful places, where we know we can fall)
fast with your mind (keep your mind in continuous prayer; in Orthodoxy, this is done with the Jesus Prayer - "Lord Jesus Christ Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner", said without interruption in the mind)
more prayer than usual, more meditation on the sufferings of our Lord
meditate on the Final Judgement questions (Matthew 25:31-46) - how do we help the ones in need? There are a few billions of people out there without food, water, shelter etc


Why was the New Testament Written in Greek? New Testament was written in Greek. But Jesus lived in Israel and was supposed to be the next King of Israel. I think it is probably fair to assume that he and his twelve apostles spoke Hebrew. Then why would the New Testament be written in Greek? I would think at least the Gospels part would be written in Hebrew.

First, actually, it was very likely that Jesus and His followers spoke no fewer than these three languages: Aramaic, Greek, and Hebrew. What language did Jesus speak?

Aramaic was the primary language of the land, Greek was the language of business, education, and for communication with foreigners (because it was a wide-spread language), and Hebrew was the religious language of the Jews and was primarily reserved for prayers, religious teaching, and communication with other Jews.

But why did they choose Greek? Well, first, we don't have the originals of any of the texts, but it is likely that most were written in Greek, however, there is some debate over a few of the books, just for your information.

The primary reason would be portability. Greek was a very wide-spread language. Hebrew and Aramaic were not. Further, after Peter had an encounter with Gentiles that had him declare that the message of Christ's resurrection was for the Gentile too, it became an international matter that all hear the Good News.

  48 So he ordered that they [Gentiles] be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Acts 10:48

Greek was the language that made sense. It was wide-spread, it was for the foreigner, and the Jew knew it as well. Greek was the language that would affect the most people.


Did Moses worship Egyptian gods while living in the palace? When and how did Moses first learn about the true
God? Did the princess teach him about Egyptian gods or the God of Israel?

Moses' mother was hired by Pharaoh's daughter to nurse him and it is only after he is 'grown' that he was brought to Pharaoh's daughter to be her son.

And Pharaoh's daughter said unto her, Take this child away, and nurse it for me, and I will give thee thy wages. And the woman took the child, and nursed it.

And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh's daughter, and he became her son. And she called his name Moses: and she said, Because I drew him out of the water.

[Exodus 2:10 KJV]

Moses' mother could well have instructed him, first, in the Hebrew fashion before he learned anything else. Moses never mentions anything in his writing that would indicate he was ever indoctrinated into Egyptian ideology.
Doubtless as an adopted grandson of Pharaoh, Moses would have been instructed in all the ways of Egypt but he chose not to follow them, personally.
At the age of forty, when he was 'grown' as an adult he clearly aligned himself with his Hebrew heritage :

And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens: and he spied an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew, one of his brethren.

And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand.

[Exodus 2:11 KJV]

The writer to the Hebrews clarifies Moses' own, personal, attitude :

By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter;

Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season;

Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward.

[Hebrews 11: 24-26 KJV]


In what way are we to be one, as Jesus and the Father are one? In his prayer for the disciples at the last super, Jesus prays this verse.

John 17:11

  I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world,
  and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of
  your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one as we are
  one.

and later in verse 22 and 23

  22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one
  as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought
  to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have
  loved them even as you have loved me.

Perhaps I have made incorrect assumptions about this verse, but I have always thought that when he says "so that they may be one" he is not only referring to the disciples but the entire Church or all Christians. Also, when he says "as we are one" he means his participation as the second person of the trinity, with God the Father.

If this is correct, I have never understood, in what ways we as finite beings, can be 'one', in the same way, or a similar way, as the persons of the trinity are are 'one'? What is 'complete unity'?

Being of the same nature http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinization_(Christian)

"For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."


According to Calvinism, is God always loving? It is well known that "God is Love" but, is there ever a time, according to 5 point Calvinists, in the bible when God is not loving? If so, according to 5 point Calvinists, what causes God to act as such?

Yes, the God of Calvinism is loving and no, there is never a time when his actions are not loving.

The loving nature of God is, according to Calvinism and Reformed theology in general, both perfect and immutable. There is no time in which he is not loving nor action which does not display his love.

The reason many people have a problem with this is that they are using much more limited definitions of love and trying to apply them to God. A mutable fickle loving nature would indeed sometimes act out of motives other than love -- some actions would be loving, others not. As broken humans we tend to default to understanding others actions in this way, however the model does not apply to God.

God's love is both an intrinsic value and an action.

It is, however, not self contradictory. His love is not expressed in embracing both good and evil. A complete, whole, rational love that is good must also be complemented by a whole, rational and holy hatred. In order to love what is good, it must also hate what is evil. In order for God himself to be loving in Character, he must be fundamentally opposed to things that are not loving. In other words, his is not only just to punish evil, but loving to do so. It would be no love of the good and innocent to let the evil and guilty go free.

The absolutely crazy "exception" to this -- and it's technically not an exception at all because his love is consistent even in this case -- is the forgiveness and reconciliation of sinners to himself through the sacrifice of Jesus. By himself becoming subject to the curse of sin and wrath of God against evil when he himself was good, he earned the right to buy back those whom he chose from death -- to experience God's love of good as one of those good things rather than experiencing his love for good things expressed as his hatred of bad things.


Where is the dead body in Luke 17? Jesus talks about the coming of the Kingdom of God in Luke 17:20-37. This passage raises four related questions for me:

Is this talking about the Rapture?
Where is "a dead body", that Jesus mentions at the end?
Who are the vultures? Those taken?
Is this talking about a world wide event? That one group is asleep and the other is awake would appear to imply this involves multiple time zones.

Here is the full text from Luke 17:20-37 (with my emphasis) (there is a similar story in Matthew 24:36-40):

Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is within you.”
Then he said to his disciples, “The time is coming when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, but you will not see it. Men will tell you, ‘There he is!’ or ‘Here he is!’ Do not go running off after them. For the Son of Man in his day will be like the lightning, which flashes and lights up the sky from one end to the other. But first he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation.
“Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man.  People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.
“It was the same in the days of Lot. People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building. But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all.
“It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed. On that day no one who is on the roof of his house, with his goods inside, should go down to get them. Likewise, no one in the field should go back for anything. Remember Lot’s wife! Whoever tries to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it. I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left.”
“Where, Lord?” they asked.
He replied, “Where there is a dead body, there the vultures will gather.”

This one line "Where there is a dead body, there the vultures will gather." is parable.
This would be the equivalent of saying, "Where there's smoke, there's fire."

Long answer:
Where, Lord?
The question that Jesus is responding to is also a bit confusing (particularly given our modern understanding of the rapture).  However, the question of "Where, Lord?" seems to be addressing the last thing Jesus says.  He just finished saying that the "Son of Man" will come and gather his people.  The disciples' question seems to ask "Where will they be gathered to."
This very much is a reference to what we call the "rapture".  This is the "gathering up" of people that Jesus will perform in the last days.  Just before this he talks about how the world is turning evil and then he says that he will come back and gather his people.  This is definitely what we modernly call the "rapture".
Jesus replies
His reply to the question of "Where, Lord?" is a parable.  He's basically saying, "Where there's smoke, there's fire."  The meaning behind this is:
"That should be pretty obvious to you."
Jesus was saying that his kingdom was coming, the world was about to end, he was about to gather his people.  The disciples ask a stupid question: "Where will you gather them?"  Jesus doesn't even bother giving a straight answer because the answer is obvious:  He's gathering them to heaven to be with him forever.
Why use a parable?
The reason that the answer is obvious is because, he's already answered that question.  Just previously in Luke 17:20-21 the passage begins Jesus' speech with "The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed."
The entire speech is about the Kingdom of God.  So when they ask, "Where will they be gathered."  He just replies in parables, since he's already made it obvious.
Summary
This phrase about vultures and a dead body is just Jesus way of saying, "Hey, it should be obvious".  He's not trying to imply anything with vultures or dead bodies.  Just like the phrase "Where there's smoke there's fire" today does not imply smoke, fire, or anything related to smoke or fire.


Isn't reincarnation affirmed by the Bible? Malachi 4:5:

  I will send you the prophet Elijah. He will come before the day of the Lord arrives. It will be a great and terrifying day

Jesus says in Matthew 11:14

  "and if you are willing to believe their message, John is Elijah, whose coming was predicted"

Jesus says in Mathew 17:12

  But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands.”

It's pretty clear from the above verses that John was Elijah reincarnated.

Wouldn't the above verses imply that reincarnation is true?

Faulty Premise #1: John the Baptist was a reincarnation of Elijah

When Jesus asked Peter who people said he was, he answered that some people thought that Jesus was Elijah come back. Peter knew better and said Jesus was the Christ. In any event, John the Baptist himself directly denied the claim (see John 1:19-21).

What Jesus more likely was saying in Matthew 11 is that John the Baptist was a prophet in the tradition of Elijah. Elijah was the greatest of the prophets (even if his disciple Elisha inherited a double portion of his spirit). All of the prophets that followed came in the name and spirit of Elijah, in the same way that some of Paul's letters apparently were created after his death. They were in the spirit and tradition even if not the actual man.

Note also Elijah never died - he was taken up into heaven, and people thought he would return. As such, no Elijah was not being thought to have reincarnated- only returned.  Elijah's return was long a part of Jewish custom. Even today, during a Passover sedar, a chair is left empty for Elijah. But again, since he did not die, Jews look for his return, not his reincarnation.

Faulty Premise #2: The Jewish world view has  any concept of reincarnation at all

The most basic rule of hermeneutics suggests that a text cannot mean what it could not mean to the original audience.  If the Jews had no concept of reincarnation, then any interpretation that says it does has a very, very high bar to clear.

In his book The Gift of the Jews, Thomas Cahill advances the thesis that the primary distinctive philosophy of the Jews was precisely that history was not circular.  Their linear idea of a human life was a departure from others and was an explicit rejection of reincarnation.  As such, a text would need to be exceedingly explicit to a culture that rejected circular life patterns, and the obscure interpretation above (especially in light of the more obvious intepretation) simply doesn't hold water.

Furthermore, the book of Hebrews - written to the people into which both Jesus and John the Baptist were born - explicitly reject reincarnation.  As the writer points out in 9:27,

  It is appointed unto a man once to die and then the judgement.

Here we do have an explicit rejection of reincarnation by the followers of Jesus.  There is one death. There is one judgement.  Hence, in any Christian worldview, you don't come back.


Does anyone know the name of the pharaoh that Joseph brought his family to meet? Jacob and his house of 70
Jacob in Egypt, Wikipedia
According to Wikipedia, Jacob brought 70 people to an Egyptian pharaoh.

Israel and his entire house of 70, gathered up with all their livestock and began their journey to Egypt.

The time had come for Joseph's family to personally meet the Pharaoh of Egypt. - Userkaf Userkaf, Wikipedia

Now, based upon this little information regards to the 70 people, I made some efforts myself to find out who this pharaoh might be, and I came across a pharaoh named Userkaf who it is claimed had a chieftain lead 70 women to him, most likely from Canaan.

Userkaf, trade & military activities, Wikipedia
South of Egypt, Userkaf launched a military expedition into Nubia, while the Old Kingdom annals record that he received tribute from a region that is either the Eastern Desert or Canaan in the form of a workforce of one chieftain and 70 foreigners (likely women), as well as 303 "pacified rebels" destined to work on Userkaf's pyramid.

So based upon this, is the reason I am asking. If the pharaoh was not Userkaf, Does anyone know which Egyptian pharaoh it was, or would have been?

I have spent rather too long on this very question... on and off for two or three years.. or was it more? can't remember exactly.  I came to the conclusion that, for the 12th dynasty (about 2000 - 1800 bc), Ulrich Luft's dating was the best offer of the expert Egyptologists.  The other Egyptologists are Ludwig Borchardt, Richard Anthony Parker and Rolf Krauss all with "slightly" differing chronologies considered within the standard chronology which has scope for variation.  Arriving at the real chronology for Egypt is like a huge jig-saw puzzle in which new pieces are being discovered by archaeology all the time.  Some important pieces of the jig-saw have been found since the days of Borchardt relating to co-regencies and reign lengths, and astronomical accuracy has improved since Parker, which leaves just the views of Ulrich and Krauss.
The standard chronology of Egypt puts Userkaf at the beginning of the 5th dynasty about 2500 bc.  This is too early for the life of Joseph.  The only way he might have been Pharaoh is if the Egyptian standard chronology is wrong, and one of the unconventional chronologies, such as that of David Rohl, is correct.
The problem with finding who was Pharaoh is not with the Biblical chronology but with the Egyptian chronology.
However, by taking what we know of the Egyptian chronology and seeing synchronies with the Bible account in the life of Joseph we can have some confidence that Jacob first appeared before either Senusert II (Greek name - Sesostris II) or Senusert III.  Both these ruled during the 12th dynasty of the Middle Kingdom era.  The latter half of the 12th dynasty is said to have been a golden age for Egypt. It is clear to me that Joseph played the central role in bringing about that golden age.
Astronomical data to help discover the reign years of the Pharaohs of the 12th dynasty include 1. the lunar observations from Il Lahun; 2. 40 other lunar observations; 3. a heliacal rising of the star Sirius on 4 Peret 16 in the 7th year of an unnamed Pharaoh (but who was either Senusert III or Amenemhat III).
The problem with dating based on lunar observational dates is that the moon follows a 19 year cycle so that dates tend to be close to repeating themselves every 19 years.
The problem with dating based on a heliacal rising of Sirius/Sothis is that though the most likely candidate was the city of Memphis, we cannot be sure from what location the observation was made, and if the observation had been made from Elephantine in southern Egypt then the year of observation is several decades later.  Rolf Krauss favours observations from Elephantine, Ulrich Luft believes the observations were made from Memphis.  The ancient Egyptians said that Sirius disappeared for 70 days in spring/early summer each year - exactly 70 days only happens at Memphis.  The history of Moses only fits Egyptian history if Memphis was the city of observation in the 18th dynasty; in later history, in the 6th century AD we are told that the observations were done at Memphis ("Ancient Egyptian Chronlogy" edited by Hornung, Krauss & Warburton, 2006, p440); and Memphis best fits for a synchrony of Egyptian history with the life of Joseph as well.
Whatever the reasons why Krauss would want to shift the city of location (ibid, p441), if we are to believe the scriptural account of the life of Moses then we must hold to Memphis as the city of observation.
[In a nutshell: Moses returned to Egypt after 40 years living with his father-in-law Jethro, after the death of the pharaoh who sought to kill him (Exodus 2:15, 2:23, 4:19; Acts 7:23, 7:30).  If the heliacal rising of Sirius was made from Memphis then this plainly fits with the long reign of Thutmoses III ending in 1450 bc.  The other proposed city of observation puts the death of Thutmoses III at 1425 bc, which does not fit an Exodus date of 1446 bc: no other pharaoh of the 18th dynasty before Thutmoses III had a reign longer than 25 years.]
The Biblical Chronology
Jacob entered Egypt with the children of Israel in 1876 bc at the time that would later be called Passover. This can be calculated from Exodus 12:40,41. At least two independent methods establish the date of the Exodus as 1446 bc.
The first method was calculated first by Valerius Coucke and then independently by Edwin Thiele: they both calculated the beginning of the Temple construction by Solomon in 967 bc. Then 967 + 479 gives 1446 bc for the Exodus (1 Kings 6:1).
In the second method the Seder Olam, a chronology produced in the 1st century, tells us that Ezekiel is writing about a Jubilee Year in Ezekiel 40:1 and that this was the 17th Jubilee Year since entering the Promised Land.  Compare this verse with Leviticus 25:9 - Rosh Hashanah, New Year's Day, fell on the 10th of the month only in a Jubilee Year.
The cuneiform inscription VAT 4956 is an astronomical record of Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year and contains enough astron. information to confidently date it to the year starting 1st Nisanu 568 bc.  The complete configuration of all the planets described on VAT 4956 only happens every few thousand years - eg Saturn's described position only happens every 29.5 years (so the Watchtower proposed year of planetary observations on VAT 4956 of 588 bc is not possible).  VAT 4956 effectively puts the destruction of the city of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar at 587 bc (Jeremiah 52:29) and the Year of Jubilee in Ezekiel 40:1 as 573 bc....   573 bc + (49 * 17) + 40 = 573 + 833 + 40 = 1406  + 40 years in the wilderness = 1446 bc.
In my opinion the date of 1406 bc for the beginning of the conquest of the Promised Land is convincingly supported by the evidence found in the archaeological site at Jericho.  (For more on this see: How do Christians reconcile archeology with the Bible in the account of the Battle of Jericho?)
And 430 years before 1446 is 1876 bc (Exodus 12:40,41).
Even though his date for the Exodus is about 1446 BC, David Rohl puts Joseph as ruling Egypt about 1667 bc and Jacob's descent into Egypt at about 1662 bc ("A Test of Time", p331).  He does not take account of Exodus 12:40,41 in his chronology, so his chronology does not agree with Scripture.
In the early part of the Twelth Dynasty the local "nomarchs" (barons) had enormous power undermining the power of the pharaoh.  During the reign of Senusert III this power was broken and a huge centralised royal administration sprang up with great speed.  Egyptologists recognise this transfer of power did not happen because of any civil war.

_The domestic policy of Senusert III "centred on the re-organization of the administrative system.  Since the Old Kingdom (2686-2181 BC), the major threat to royal power had probably come from the nomarchs, the provincial governors; a shift in the funerary patterns of the elite (a decline in [the grandeur of] provincial tombs) may indicate that Senusert III reduced their authority drastically by removing many of their established privileges.  The means by which this was achieved is unclear, but henceforth it was the king's 'viziers' who oversaw all branches of administration." ("British Museum Dictionary of Ancient Egypt", Shaw & Nicholson).

This mystery of the Middle Kingdom era fits neatly with the seven years of famine when Joseph bought Egypt for the Pharaoh.
For more on the amazing synchronies between the Bible and Egyptian history using the Egyptian standard chronology of Ulrich Luft see my answer here:- Why we do we "know" that Joseph wasn't Hyksos?.
Books
To those interested in a general overview of Egyptian history I recommend "British Museum Dictionary of Ancient Egypt" by Ian Shaw and Paul Nicholson (2nd edition).
Those who want to try and get to grips with the chronology of the 12th dynasty (2000 - 1800 bc) will sooner or later need to get to grips with "Die chronologische Fixierung des agyptischen Mittleren Reiches nach dem Tempelarchiv von Illahun" by Ulrich Luft, 1992.  Though I cannot read German I found I this indispensible for info on the "40 other lunar observations". If you can read German then please translate the work into English!
Also "Lunar and Sothic data from the archive of El-Lahun revisited"; A paper by Rita Gautschy in "Current Research in Egyptology 2010 - Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Symposium - Leiden University 2010".
"Ancient Egyptian Chronology", edited by E. Hornung, Rolf Krauss,  and D. Warburton, 2006.
Free Online Information
LYNN ROSE
The Astronomical Evidence for Dating the End of the Middle Kingdom of Ancient Egypt to the Early Second Millennium: A Reassessment
Website: The Star Sirius in Ancient Egypt and Babylonia, by Rita Gautschy
http://www.gautschy.ch/~rita/archast/sirius/siriuseng.htm
Website: Last and First sightings of the lunar crescent, by Rita Gautschy  (Egypt used the last sighting of old crescent, everyone else (Babylon, etc) used first sighting of new crescent to determine first day of each month)
http://www.gautschy.ch/~rita/archast/mond/mondeng.html


What does "Tres Personae" mean in Tertullian's "Una Substantia Tres Personae"? I've read the internet about Tertullian's "tres personae, una substantia" of Trinity. It seems that his "tres personae, una substantia" is rejected by all kind of Christianity.

However I would like to know what the Tertullian's "Tres Personae" mean since from the internet I read about English, the word [Person] has different meaning with [Persona].

Now it seems to me the "Tres Personae" is [Three Persona], not [Three Persons], while in the point of view of the pro-Trinity majority (as far as I know) it's about [Three Persons].

So, my question is – did Tertullian meant of his "Personae" a Person? or a Persona?

Or did I make mistake which actually in English language, there is no difference between Persona and Person?

The Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity provides a brief overview of the evolution of the Latin term persona (plural personae), which Tertullian is famous for introducing into discussions on the threeness of God.  It begins with the secular meaning, and then moves to Tertullian's use of the word:

  In addition to the classical meanings of the term persona (role, person and individuality), Latin theology from the very beginning knew of a technical meaning.  [...] Borrowing from secular exegesis that distinguished persona grammatically and aesthetically (dignity or personal character), and under the influence of the legal tradition, [Tertullian] applied a realist meaning to the term (persona = res). (3:153)

Res is the Latin word for "thing" or "entity," which while pointing us in the right direction, perhaps still feels insufficiently specific.  We can turn to J. N. D. Kelly, who writes in Early Christian Doctrines:

  The primary sense of persona was 'mask', from which the transition was easy to the actor who wore it and the character he played.  In legal usage it could stand for the holder of the title to a property, but as employed by Tertullian it connoted the concrete presentation of an individual as such. (115, emphasis added)

So we might say then that the personae of Tertullian are "persons" in the sense of "individuals" or "entities."  But Kelly warns us against anachronistically reading modern understandings of "person" onto Tertullian:

  In neither case, it should be noted, was the idea of self-consciousness nowadays associated with 'person' and 'personal' at all prominent. (115)


Must everyone live a quiet life? 1 Thessalonians 4:11 says,

  and to make it your ambition to lead a quiet life: You should mind your own business and work with your hands, just as we told you,

If this was a blanket statement to everyone, people like Billy Graham would be sinning by living famous lives in the public spotlight.

Is that true? What is the real command here? How has this issue been addressed elsewhere in the Old & New Testaments, or by scholars and theologians?

The clue to understanding this is found in verse 12.

  1 Thessalonians 4:12 (NLT) Then people who are not Christians will
  respect the way you live, and you will not need to depend on others.

Living a quiet life: Paul instructed the Christians in Corinth to live peacefully and not fight among themselves. When the non-Christians see the peace among the Christians, they will be respected by the community. Christians should maintain good characters.
Work with your hands: Paul wanted them to be independent and prosperous so that they don't have to beg/ask from others. He encouraged them to work hard, make their own living without disturbing society. Paul did not want them to be lazy.


Are there truths that can only be known through spiritual means? The motivation for this question basically comes from reading the discussion around the question Is it necessary to Biblically support arguments within discussions about Christianity? and a question at Philosophy Stack Exchange, Kierkegaard and the Tripartite Theory of Man in which the bipartite view (only mind and body) of man is distinguished from the tripartite view (spirit, soul and body).

In science, we know things through empirical methods, and in logic/mathematics, we know things through logical proofs. We use combinations of these methods to know various facts in daily life. Yet 1 Corinthians 2:14 says that "...the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God..." and uses the phrase "spiritually discerned" in reference to the things of the Spirit of God. Now in the book "The Spiritual Man" by Watchman Nee, which takes the tripartite view, there is reference made to "The Soul's Faculty of Intellect or Mind" (in Volume 1, Part 1, Chapter 2), hence apparently making a connection between "mind" and "soul".

Hence all this leads to the obvious question: Are there true statements that inherently are unknowable by empirical means or logic and simply require "spiritual discernment"?

Perhaps the second question is: What is a man to do then?

Of course, I realize that this whole tripartite view might not even be widely accepted in the first place, nor might the book I mentioned be well-known. I myself do not claim expertise in all these matters. I'd just be happy to hear views and generate discussion. Thanks!

The short answer to your question is yes.
Matthew 7:28-29

28 And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:
29 For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

What do you suppose it means, "as one having authority, and not as the scribes"? (Think how the scribes learned what they knew of the law.)
Galatians 1:12

12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Cool how Paul learned the gospel, isn't it? The disciples describe similar experiences thus:
Luke 24:32

And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

The burning of the bosom is a sensation described multiple times in scripture as a possible way to know/recognize spiritual truth.
Paul describes the process of revelation by spiritual means to know God:
Ephesians 1:17-18

17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:
18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,

Clearly, it is by spiritual means that a personal testimony is gained.
Jesus directly told the disciples that the Holy Ghost will teach them/us all things:
John 14:26

26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Also, Romans is instructive:
Romans 8:16

16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

How is this spiritual truth learned? Spirit to spirit. I believe this is the only way to gain a true understanding and/or testimony of certain doctrines.
So what are we to do?
Jeremiah 29:13

12 Then shall ye call upon me, and ye shall go and pray unto me, and I will hearken unto you.
13 And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.

This promise is perhaps one of the most oft-repeated promises in all of holy scripture (for example, see Luke 11:9 or Matthew 7:7), and I think many, if not all, Christian faiths abide by this.


What does "authentic magisterium" entail in Lumen Gentium? Lumen Gentium 25 states in part:

In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent (religioso animi obsequio). This religious submission of mind and will (religiosum voluntatis et intellectus obsequium) must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium (authentico magisterio) of the Roman Pontiff

What is the scope of the authentic magisterium of the Pope? How does this differ from the Ordinary or Extraordinary Magisterium of the Church? Can the authentic Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff conflict with the general Magisterium (what has been taught previously)? Is the Roman Pontiff the specific current holder or the general office?

Volume 3 (of 5) of the Exegetical Commentary on the [1983] Code of Canon Law (PDF pp. 3269-70) elucidates the "authentic magisterium" that appeared, from Lumen Gentium §25, in

1983 Code Can. 752Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will (religiosum tamen intellectus et voluntatis obsequium) must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium (magisterium authenticum), even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act*; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

*cf. Pius XII, Humani Generis §20: "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: 'He who heareth you, heareth me' [Lk. 10:16]; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians."
saying:

1. Classification of acts of magisterium with formally negative wording
The first comment that would seem to be necessary for a correct understanding of this canon is that both the intrinsic disposition of persons receiving acts of magisterium as well as the acts of magisterium themselves mentioned in c. 752 are described in negative terms. This approach in phrasing the law (which is necessary in this case, as we shall see) does not imply or suggest an attitude of inattention or unawareness with re spect to either divine assistance with the acts of magisterium mentioned in this canon or religious submission with which these acts are to be received.
Canon 752, like cc. 749-750, refers to the authentic universal magisterium of the Supreme Pontiff or College of Bishops. The difference is that c. 752 deals with magisterial acts the subject matter of which does not attempt to define a doctrine by means of a decisive infallible act. Magisterial acts of the Roman Pontiff that are made with no indication of being definitions of dogma are also called non ex cathedra magisterium (LG 25) or non-infallible pontifical magisterium. Along this same line of distinction, these acts of magisterium, as opposed to the acts of magisterium described in cc. 7 49-750, are also known as simply authentic magisterium, or magisterium that does not have the highest authority.
The need to resort to classifications of these magisterial acts that are technically negative (non-infallible, non-definitive, non ex cathedra) is necessitated by the fact that there are no specific bodies or kinds of action that can be exclusively described as those of the universal magisterium, as discussed here, to differentiate them from statements of dogma that constitute infallible magisterium. In fact, the same bodies (the Roman Pontiff and the College of Bishops) impart both infallible magisterium and non-definitive magisterium. Further, no distinction can be drawn between these two types of magisterium by stating that a solemn act gives rise to an infallible magisterium, since many documents written by ecumenical councils do not claim to define doctrine dogmatically. On the contrary, an ordinary and universal magisterium exercised by the bishops, "dispersed throughout the world but maintaining the bond of union among themselves and with the successor of Peter" (c. 749 §2) may be infallible (c. 750).
Further, the efficacy of a magisterial act alone to formulate a definitive, infallible teaching must not be confused with the fact that the same magisterial act, even though it may not expressly state that it is definitive dogma (such as an encyclical of the Roman Pontiff), may contain infallible doctrines originating from earlier definitive acts whose efficacy is not diminished because magisterial acts of lower authority recalls doctrines defined earlier.


Do Christians foresee contradicting Government requirements in prolonged 'lockdown' conditions? I received an email today from someone who has, thus far, complied with Government advice, concerned that prolonged lockdown conditions or 'semi-lockdown' conditions (which pose significant restrictions on communal gathering for worship) will soon necessitate a decision to go against Government requirements in the future (I am not saying which country this refers to) and to consider house-meetings for worship or other arrangements that will contradict 'advice' or statutory requirements.
The thought had crossed my own mind as well, that the restrictions imposed (no singing permitted, limited number of persons allowed in the building, limited scope for normal fellowship, limited scope for prayer meetings where many of the congregation will lead in prayer) might, if prolonged, be considered a situation where one would have to consider 'obeying God rather than men'.
My own thought has been to consider meetings in the open air, something done commonly in olden times and done often in the times when Jesus preached to large multitudes.
A building is not a necessity and it would perhaps be viewed by authorities less severely than if Government requirements were breached within a building.
Have any Christian gatherings or denominations (who have thus far complied with all recommendations) made any public statements in regard to how Christians view the ongoing pandemic situation and what they propose for the future ?

Christians around the world have been forced to meet in secret at various times and places throughout history, and even today there are many countries where Christians must hide to avoid persecution.
Different countries have different levels of religious freedom. In the United States, we have a constitutional guarantee that the federal government will not make laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. If this is tested, you can expect many Christians in the US to challenge it. Those in other countries may have a harder time being able to continue to worship.


How does the loss of Wesleyan perfectionism differ from Catholic distinctions between mortal and venial sins? Wesleyan perfectionism is often compared to a Calvinist view of sanctification but this question is different. It is designed for someone familiar with Wesleyan theology to provide an explanation that differentiates it from a Catholic view. I am trying to see in what sense is Wesley’s view similar to or different from a Catholic view in terms of sanctification and potential loss of salvation.

Here is what I understand (or think I do):

Catholics believe that when a person is baptized original sin is removed, the soul is renewed, adoption into the family of God has occurred and so long as one does not commit mortal sin, they remain justified - or inwardly just - by the infused good works within them by the grace of God. Wesleyan’s on the other hand hold a protestant justification view, so that sinners are made righteous before any sanctification has occurred, and that justification is an event introducing sanctification. However sanctification once introduced after justification implies a kind of elite level of true holiness that can be habitually attained that should surpass the experience of Prophets and saints prior to the outpouring of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost. The Holy Spirit is the gift to the church and author of this very remarkable holiness so that a person can be in a sinless state even for longer than a whole day. The new heightened holiness or perfection after Pentecost enables Christians in some sense to be perfect (not just mature).

Here is what I do not understand:

Do Wesleyans consider certain sins committed by those who were truly justified as loosing that justified status, such as Catholics do under the concept of mortal sin? For example, if a Wesleyan commits adultery and dies in that unrepentant sin, does this mean he/she is damned?  If not, if there is no 'mortal' and 'venial' distinction what is the trigger that makes a Wesleyan in a state of being ‘out of grace’ such as a Catholic is with un-repented mortal sin? Is the only mortal sin just no longer having faith in Christ at all, or some other more complicated criteria?

The reason why I am asking this question is that in terms of Justification it is clear to me Wesleyans and Catholic are at opposite poles of thought. However, when it comes to sanctification and potential loss of salvation, I do not know how they are differentiated from one another. I suspect there are quite different, I just would like to know more from someone who understands Wesleyan theology. I would like this explained in contrast to the basic idea of Catholicism, which is that you are 'just or perfect' so long as you do not commit a mortal sin, upon which time you loose that perfection, justification or grace of God. Of course the methods of restoration to grace from that 'condemned state' would be different, but that is not my immediate question. The question has to do with the criteria for 'falling from grace' not the restoration back.

How does the loss of Wesleyan perfectionism (which might eventually lead to a total loss of salvation) differ from Catholic distinctions between mortal and venial sins?

First, I want to be clear that perfectionism doesn't mean being perfect as in without error. So committing a sin, such as adultery, doesn't "remove" perfectionism. Perfectionism, in the Wesleyan sense, essentially means making up your mind to do your absolute best to keep the first two commandments: love god with all your heart, mind, soul and strength and to love your neighbor as yourself. That you fail along the way doesn't matter as long as you pick yourself back up and keep moving towards the mark. The loss of salvation can happen in two ways. First, in your effort to be "perfect" you fail at love (see Pharisees), the second is deciding that you can do whatever you want because you know God will always forgive you. Hosea 6:6 is a good summary.

  "For I desire mercy and not sacrifice, knowledge of God more than burnt offerings."

http://www.theopedia.com/Wesleyan_perfectionism


Is there a Christian equivalent of the Muslim hadith, but for narrations relating to Jesus? Muslim here; I'm not particularly familiar with Christianity (so bear with me please).  In Islam, we have hadith:

  A hadith is one of various reports describing the words, actions, or habits of the Islamic prophet Muhammad.

Question: Is there a Christian equivalent of the Muslim hadith, but for narrations relating to Jesus?

I'm aware of narrations relating to Jesus in the Bible, such as curing leprosy:

  And Jesus put forth His hand and touched him, saying, “I will: be thou clean.” And immediately his leprosy was cleansed. -- Matthew 8:3

But this isn't exactly equivalent, as a hadith is ordinarily of the form "Muhammad said/did this", and is separate from the Qur'an.

Searching for hadith on this site reveals Does Christianity have any other books besides the Bible that the disciples use for following?, but this is about books, rather than narrations.  Searching for "christian equivalent of hadith" or "christian narrations of jesus" wasn't helpful.

The Gospels might be considered akin to the hadith in how they are used. The Catholic and Orthodox sects of Christianity read the Gospels in a similar way to the hadith, as the start of a divinely inspired oral and written tradition which involved building a centuries-long consensus over interpretation and practice. The Protestant sects read the Gospels in a very different way. Each person reads the Gospels alone (sola scriptura) and forms his own judgments about them, sometimes with the assistance of a church community.

There are also a few orthodox "hadith" which are not in the Gospels but are found in early Christian writings and other documents. These are called "agrapha". However, agrapha are treated as akin to the more dubious hadith. They were first assembled in a single book by the German Alfred Resch in 1889. Since then they have been followed by some other textual discoveries, but none of these really contribute to the tradition of the Church in any of its mainstream forms.


Creation, Fall, Redemption (Restoration/New Creation): Who said it first? Who is the author who first described the biblical metanarrative of scripture as Creation, Fall, Redemption -- and some include Restoration or New Creation?

While creation and redemption were early Christian/biblical concepts, the notion of a "Fall" draws heavily from Platonism and Neoplatonism. Pushing all three together into a narrative is probably easiest to attribute to Augustine, the great importer of Neoplatonist themes into Christian doctrine, but let's unpack each of the three.

Creation
Obviously the creation narratives in the first three chapters of Genesis have been interpreted in various ways throughout the history of Jewish and Christian thought. However, these differing interpretations usually disagree on the how of creation, (1) (2) (3) (4) not the cause of creation. (5) (6) (7) For example, Christian thinkers may disagree on the time span of creation (literal six days?), but all Christian theologians agree that God is ultimately creator. (8) (9)

Redemption
This is a bit tricky to answer in the context of this question and we will need to come back to it afterward for a fuller answer. Like the doctrine of creation, redemption has had many differing interpretations. It's probably best categorized under the doctrine of soteriology which answers the question: How does God save? Biblical concepts inside this doctrine include topics like redemption, reconciliation, propitiation, forgiveness, and justification. (10)
Depending on the period of Christian history and the theologian, the way we approach soteriology can be radically different, but indebted to Jewish thought, the early church always had a concept that God is the one who "saves". (11) (12)

Fall
Here's the missing piece of the puzzle that ties the narrative together. Many modern Christians have lumped concepts like Adam's first sin, the fall, and original sin together to mean the same thing. If that's you, you probably owe it to a modified version of St. Augustine's teaching on the issue. But that deserves a bit of unpacking. First, let's talk about the fall.
The fall really isn't a biblical concept. That language of descent doesn't manifest itself in the garden narrative or in the early Christian writings. If anything, the paradigm wasn't a vertical one, but a horizontal one: inclusion vs exclusion: Adam and Eve were excluded from the garden, Gehenna -- often translated as "hell" in English -- is literally a valley outside the city of Jerusalem. (13) (14) (15)
In fact, the concept of the fall, really becomes cemented in Christian doctrine because of Augustine. His project merges Plotinus, the great neoplatonist thinker, with the Christian tradition. In the Phaedrus, Plato describes the fall of the immortal soul in heaven, which Plotinius expands and orders into a systematic doctrine. (16) (17) (18)
In order to go any further, it's time to get some technical terminology out of the way. First let's start with the difference between original sin and first sin (or Adam's sin). The first sin is a reference to the Garden of Eden. Literally, it's when Adam and Eve ate from the tree. Original sin is also a concept that comes from Augustine, and it is a sharing of all humanity in the first sin. For Augustine, when Adam ate from the tree, all humanity shared in that sin in mass condemnation. (19) (20) (21)
What's going on here? Well, the church hadn't yet condemned the doctrine of the preexistence of souls in Augustine's time, but it was not common doctrine. Humans are not immortal, and therefore we need a beginning. For most Christians, our souls are created like the rest of created things and there was a time when "we were not." (22)
So Augustine can't use the concept of the fall like the platonists do. Individually, for Augustine, we don't fall into our bodies from an eternal, heavenly state. Instead, the entire human race fell into original sin during that first sin of Adam. (23) The consequence, for Augustine, is a perversion of our "will" or desire. Humans are now in need of repairing or mending this broken will. (24) (25)

Conclusion
In a famous quote from Augustine, he says, "My weight is my love." (26) What he means is that by loving higher things, our weight becomes lighter (like the ancient element of fire) and we tend toward heaven. By loving lower things, I become heavier and tend toward lower existence (like the ancient element of earth). Tying it together, redemption becomes the healing of our will or desire. When God heals us, we become capable of loving God, which draws our souls toward heaven.
Is this still the way all theologians view this narrative of creation, fall, and redemption? No. Throughout the history of the church, theologians have rethought these concepts. It's not really fashionable (or believable) to base a modern theology on Neoplatonism, but Augustine's impact can still be felt. Even thinkers who reject Platonism will still use concepts like Original Sin and the Fall, but interpret them in different ways.


Why do many old churches face east? Many of the old churches including Anglican, Catholic and Orthodox ones face east. My question is: Was the tradition of construction of churches facing east, a product of certain beliefs, or was it based on scriptures? Are there any references in scriptures that one would like to quote in support of the tradition? Inputs from any denomination are welcome.

The main Christian dominations that have churches facing East are the Anglican Church, Roman Catholic and Orthodox. However this tradition was not totally universal in its' usage because of the fact that some churches were the result of pre-existing buildings being converted into churches, or because of some other local reason, such as the direction of streets and so on.

  Five years before he became Benedict XVI, Joseph Ratzinger wrote that, notwithstanding various liturgical innovations, “one thing has remained clear for the whole of Christendom: praying towards the east is a tradition that goes back to the beginning.” As he wrote in The Spirit of the Liturgy:

  The common turning toward the east was not a “celebration toward the wall;” it did not mean that the priest “had his back to the people.” . . . For just as the congregation in the synagogue looked together toward Jerusalem, so in the Christian liturgy the congregation looked together “toward the Lord.” . . . They did not close themselves into a circle; they did not gaze at one another; but as the pilgrim People of God they set off for the Oriens, for the Christ who comes to meet us. - Facing East

Let us not forget what the Gospels have to say about Christ's second coming:

  For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. - Matthew 24: 27

Cathedral oriented to the East

  The first Christians faced east when praying, for which various explanations have been offered. In a tradition well established by the time of Christ, Jews in the diaspora would pray facing Jerusalem, which in most of the Roman Empire would have been to the East. Another explanation is that Christ's Second Coming would be on the clouds coming from the East: "For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." (Matthew 24:27). Due to this eastward posture of prayer, Tertullian (c. 160 — c. 220) says that some non-Christians thought they worshipped the sun. Origen (c. 185 — 253) says: "The fact that [...] of all the quarters of the heavens, the east is the only direction we turn to when we pour out prayer, the reasons for this, I think, are not easily discovered by anyone." Later on, various Fathers of the Church advanced mystical reasons for the custom.

  At first, the orientation of the building in which Christians met was unimportant, but after the legalization of the religion in the fourth century, customs developed in this regard. These differed in East and West.

  The Apostolic Constitutions, a work of eastern Christianity written between 375 and 380 AD, gave it as a rule that churches should have the sanctuary (with apse and sacristies) at the east end, to enable Christians to pray eastward in church as in private or in small groups. In the middle of the sanctuary was the altar, behind which was the bishop's throne, flanked by the seats of the presbyters, while the laity were on the opposite side. However, even in the East there were churches (for example, in Tyre) that had the entrance at the east end and the sanctuary at the west end. During the readings all looked towards the readers, the bishop and presbyters looking westward, the people eastward. The Apostolic Constitutions, like the other documents that speak of the custom of praying towards the east, do not indicate on which side of the altar the bishop stood for "the sacrifice".

  The importance attached to orientation of churches declined after the 15th century. In his instructions on the building and arrangement of churches, Charles Borromeo, archbishop of Milan from 1560 to 1584, expressed a preference for having the apse point exactly east, but accepted that, where that is impractical, a church could be built even on a north-south axis, preferably with the façade at the southern end. He stated that the altar can also be at the west end, where "in accordance with the rite of the Church it is customary for Mass to be celebrated at the main altar by a priest facing the people". - Orientation of churches

The Catholic Encyclopedia explains the Orientation of Churches as thus:

  According to Tertullian (155-240) the Christians of his time were, by some who concerned themselves with their form of worship, believed to votaries of the sun. This supposition, he adds, doubtless arose from the Christian practice of turning to the east when praying (Apol., c. xvi). Speaking of churches the same writer tells us that the homes "of our dove", as he terms them, are always in "high and open places, facing the light" (Adv. Val., c. iii), and the Apostolic Constitutions (third to fifth century) prescribe that church edifices should be erected with their "heads" towards the East (Const. Apost., II, 7).

  The practice of praying while turned towards the rising sun is older than Christianity, but the Christians in adopting it were influenced by reasons peculiar to themselves. The principal of these reasons, according to St. Gregory of Nyssa, was that the Orient contained man's original home, the earthly paradise. St. Thomas Aquinas, speaking for the Middle Ages, adds to this reason several others, as for example, that Our Lord lived His earthly life in the East, and that from the East He shall come to judge mankind (II-II, Q. lxxxiv, a. 3). Thus from the earliest period the custom of locating the apse and altar in the eastern extremity of the church was the rule. Yet the great Roman Basilicas of the Lateran, St. Peter's, St. Paul's (originally), St. Lorenzo's, as well as the Basilica of the Resurrection in Jerusalem and the basilicas of Tyre and Antioch, reversed this rule by placing the apse in the western extremity. The reasons for this mode of orientation can only be conjectured. Some writers explain it by the fact that in the fourth century the celebrant at Mass faced the people, and, therefore in a church with a western apse, looked towards the East when officiating at the altar. Others conjecture that the peculiar orientation of the basilicas mentioned, erected by Constantine the Great or under his influence, may have been a reminiscence of the former predilection of this emperor for sun-worship. In the Orient the eastern apse was the rule, and thence it made its way to the West through the reconstructed Basilica of St. Paul's, the Basilica of S. Pietro in Vincoli, and the celebrated basilica of Ravenna. From the eighth century the propriety of the eastern apse was universally admitted, though, of course strict adherence to this architectural canon, owing to the direction of city streets, was not always possible.

As a side note: This question reminds me of the hymn (Christmas carol), People look East by Eleanor Farjeon (1881-1965).