According to Catholic teaching, was Joseph and Mary's marriage a true marriage? Well, I've read in several articles, and if not mistaken also in canon law, for a marriage to be valid, there has to be consummation (intercourse). However, since, if I'm not mistaken, by Catholic teaching (Virgin) Mary and St. Joseph never had intercourse, then the question of the validity of their marriage poses itself.

Was it valid?

Yes; Catholicism teaches that Joseph and Mary had a true marriage.
In the first place, consummation is not required for a marriage to be valid in the Catholic Church. What is necessary is (more or less) that the man and woman vow to be with each other, as one, forever; and that they intend to be together for the purpose of having and raising children. In fact, canon law distinguishes between consummated and non-consummated valid marriages:

A valid marriage between the baptized is called ratum tantum [that is "sufficiently established"] if it has not been consummated; it is called ratum et consummatum ["established and consummated"] if the spouses have performed between themselves in a human fashion a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring, to which marriage is ordered by its nature and by which the spouses become one flesh.

(Canon 1061, section 1)
I don't see a discussion of the question in the Catechism; that's really not the point of the Catechism. But Aquinas answers this very question, in the Third Part of his Summa Theologica:

Marriage or wedlock is said to be true by reason of its attaining its perfection. Now perfection of anything is twofold; first, and second. The first perfection of a thing consists in its very form, from which it receives its species; while the second perfection of a thing consists in its operation, by which in some way a thing attains its end. Now the form of matrimony consists in a certain inseparable union of souls, by which husband and wife are pledged by a bond of mutual affection that cannot be sundered. And the end of matrimony is the begetting and upbringing of children: the first of which is attained by conjugal intercourse; the second by the other duties of husband and wife, by which they help one another in rearing their offspring.
Thus we may say, as to the first perfection, that the marriage of the Virgin Mother of God and Joseph was absolutely true: because both consented to the nuptial bond, but not expressly to the bond of the flesh, save on the condition that it was pleasing to God. For this reason the angel calls Mary the wife of Joseph, saying to him (Mat. 1:20): "Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife": on which words Augustine says (De Nup. et Concup. i): "She is called his wife from the first promise of her espousals, whom he had not known nor ever was to know by carnal intercourse."
But as to the second perfection which is attained by the marriage act, if this be referred to carnal intercourse, by which children are begotten; thus this marriage was not consummated. Wherefore Ambrose says on Lk. 1:26,27: "Be not surprised that Scripture calls Mary a wife. The fact of her marriage is declared, not to insinuate the loss of virginity, but to witness to the reality of the union." Nevertheless, this marriage had the second perfection, as to upbringing of the child. Thus Augustine says (De Nup. et Concup. i): "All the nuptial blessings are fulfilled in the marriage of Christ's parents, offspring, faith and sacrament. The offspring we know to have been the Lord Jesus; faith, for there was no adultery: sacrament, since there was no divorce. Carnal intercourse alone there was none."

(Question 29, Article 2)
That is: the point of marriage is for the man and the woman to come together, for all time, for the purpose of (having and) raising children. And indeed, in Catholic teaching, Mary and Joseph did come together, and stay together for the rest of their lives, and raise a child whom they appeared to treat and understand as "their child". The only thing they didn't do is consummate the marriage—which of course is usually required in order to have one's own children, but not in their case.


To the Protestant, what is the benefit of putting a cross inside the church? From the internet I found that : [a cross is the principal symbol of the Christian religion]

I've searched in the internet, all I can find is a question about "why Catholic cross has statue ?" or "why there is a difference between Catholic VS Protestant cross ?".

And the questions like that are not the one I'm asking here.

My questions are :
1. What is the benefit of putting a cross symbol inside the church?
2. How did putting a cross inside a church begin and who ordered it?

Thank you.

edit :
the question number-2 has the answer from the possible duplicate link here How did the cross come to be a symbol for Christianity? which is :

  In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical
  system pagans were received into the churches apart from regeneration
  by faith, and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and
  symbols

So.... loooong time ago, in order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system pagans (cross symbol in this case) were received into the churches.

But the link there still has no answer for the question number-1 :)

It seems that most Protestant churches are fairly silent on their reasoning; it's something that people don't really think about because it is so ingrained into their worship. However, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (one of the many, many Protestant denominations) had a Q&A where they discussed crosses in churches. Several key points:

Their guidelines for worship, the Westminster Standards (Confession of Faith and Catechisms) and the OPC Book of Church Order (BCO), do not have any mention about crosses in church, thus there are no formal guidelines
Local churches are free to include them or not include them as they see fit
Given that early churches did not have dedicated meeting places, they did not have crosses as permanent fixtures and yet were still able to worship

To answer your specific questions:

What is the benefit of putting a cross symbol inside the church?

The benefit is whatever the local churches ascribe to it when they ask for it to be installed. The question asker gives a fairly common perspective:

  Some say that the cross like the [national] flag, is only symbolic. While the flag is not in the Bible, the cross is. Albeit a method of traditional Roman execution at the time of Christ on earth, without the cross there is no Calvary, no crucifiction and therefore no Christ, who died and shed his blood for us on the cross.

In other words, for some people the cross is a symbol that is representative of something greater. Much like people treat a flag with respect because it represents a nation, the cross is treated with respect and importance because it represents Christ's sacrifice (or Christ himself) and the basis it has on Christian faith.

How did putting a cross inside a church begin and who ordered it?

  [W]hen did churches begin to include crosses in their architecture? Now I grant that the question is virtually un-answerable. But it makes a valid point. It was without question a long time before the New Testament churches had their own buildings, and arguably a longer time before they began to fix crosses on the walls.

While I suspect that historians could probably more reliably pinpoint the time that crosses became commonplace, I think the point is that because the early church was persecuted, they wouldn't have been able to hang crosses up. It was pretty commonplace by the time of the Protestant Reformation, and since your question is about Protestantism, I think it's fair to say that nobody "ordered it", instead people just thought it was a natural thing to do.


Has Peter Lombard ever been venerated in the Catholic Church? Peter Lombard was allegedly one of the most important theologians of the Middle Ages. As Wikipedia states, he was:

Bishop of Paris, and author of Four Books of Sentences, which became the standard textbook of theology, for which he earned the accolade Magister Sententiarum. [...]
From the 1220s until the 16th century, no work of Christian literature, except for the Bible itself, was commented upon more frequently. All the major medieval thinkers, from Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas to William of Ockham and Gabriel Biel, were influenced by it. Even the young Martin Luther still wrote glosses on the Sentences, and John Calvin quoted from it over 100 times in his Institutes.

Later on the article mention just one doctrines with seem to be relatively controversial, but yet far from being declared heretic. It is know that even St. Augustine wrote things which are not in line with current official teaching or dogmas.
The Catholic Encyclopedia states about him:

On the whole and in spite of his connection with Abelard, he is orthodox; a proposition of his on "Christological nihilism" was condemned by Alexander III; other theses were abandoned in the century that followed; St. Bonaventure mentions eight of them and the University of Paris later added others. But the success of the book was incontestable; down to the sixteenth century it was the textbook in the university courses, upon which each future doctor had to lecture during two years.

Later on, the article states:

[T]he success of Peter Lombard was not immediate. Attacked sometimes during his lifetime, as Maurice of Sully among others relates, after his death he was bitterly inveighed against, especially by Gautier of St. Victor and by Joachim of Flora. This opposition even went so far as to try to get his writings condemned. In 1215 at the Lateran Council these attempts were baffled, and the second canon began a profession of faith in these words: "Credimus cum Petro [Lombardo]".

So he or his writings (except one or two points, it seems) were never really condemned. And yet, he seem to have never got ground for reverence among other great theologians of the Middle Ages. Is this the case? How can we explain this?

Has Peter Lombard ever been venerated in the Catholic Church?
Has Peter Lombard ever been officially been given the title of venerable, as in the second step towards being canonized as a saint in the Catholic Church, the simple answer is no.
There seems to be no formal documentation to support the fact that he was venerated as such.
One of the biggest obstacles towards beatification and canonization is to have strong group of faithful to constantly push the case forward. Did Peter Lombard have this?
There is equally no doubt that Peter Lombard was indeed a very venerable and holy man.
On December 30,2010, Pope Benedict XVI dedicated his weekly general audience to the person of Peter Lombard. Nowhere in his address, did the pope refer to Peter Lombard as being venerable, as in the sense that his process of canonization had been opened. If he had of been already declared a venerable by the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, Pope Benedict XVI would have placed this title prior to mentioning Peter Lombard.

During his general audience on Dec. 30, Pope Benedict XVI resumed his catechesis on the Christian culture of the Middle Ages. He spoke about Peter Lombard, an outstanding theologian, whose best-known work, the Sentences, became the standard introduction to theology for centuries, influencing the thought of scholars such as Sts. Albert the Great, Bonaventure and Thomas Aquinas.
Dear brothers and sisters,
During this last audience of the year, I would like to speak to you about Peter Lombard, a theologian who lived during the 12th century and who is especially renowned because one of his works, the Sentences, was used as a standard text at schools of theology for many centuries.
Who, then, was Peter Lombard? Although there is little information about his life, we can reconstruct some essential facts. He was born between the 11th and the 12th centuries near Novara in northern Italy, in a land that had belonged to the Lombards for some time — hence the reason he was given the name of “Lombard.”
He came from a family of modest means, which we can deduce from the letter of introduction that Bernard of Clairvaux wrote for him to Gilduin, superior of the Abbey of St. Victor in Paris, asking him to take in Peter for free, since Peter wished to go to Paris to pursue his studies.
During the Middle Ages, it was not merely the nobles or the wealthy who could pursue their studies and aspire to important roles in the life of society at large or in the life of the Church. Even people of humble origins could attain such roles, like Gregory VII, the pope who held his ground in a confrontation with Emperor Henry IV, and Maurice of Sully, the archbishop of Paris who ordered the construction of the Cathedral of Notre-Dame and who himself was the son of a poor peasant.
Peter Lombard began his studies in Bologna, but later went to Reims and then to Paris. From 1140 onwards, he taught at the prestigious school of Notre Dame.
Respected and appreciated as a theologian, Pope Eugene III entrusted him eight years later with the task of examining the teachings of Gilbert Porretano, which had stirred up a great deal of controversy since they were regarded as not completely orthodox. After he was ordained a priest, Peter was named bishop of Paris in 1159, just a year before his death in 1160. - Peter Lombard, Theologian

Is Peter Lombard a Servant of God (Servus Dei)?
Personally, it is doubtful, for Benedict XVI never referred to Peter Lombard as a Servant of God.
To be declared a Servant of God, the first step towards canonization the process of canonization must be open at the local level by the local ordinary (bishop) or religious superior in the case the person is of a Religious Order.
To find this out one could email the Archdiocese of a Paris to find out.
Another way to actually verify this question is to check it out in the Index ac Status Causarum Beatificationis Servorum dei et Canonizationis ac Beatorum, if one can even locate this book.


If only those who died after Jesus death are among the ones that go to heaven, how do JWs view the ascension of Elijah? Jehovah's Witnesses believe that only 144000 (the group mentioned in Revelation 14:1-3) have a heavenly hope, while the rest of humankind have the hope of living forever on earth. This is for example explained in the selected answer to this question.

Additionally an answer to this other question says (emphasis added):

  However, all of these faithful ones from before Jesus' day have the
  earthly hope, just as most Jehovah's Witnesses have today. The
  heavenly hope has been reserved for 144,000 which have been chosen
  by Christ ever since his death. Those with the heavenly hope will
  assist Christ in ruling the righteous ones on Earth.

and

  This is the only distinction between those who died before Jesus'
  death and those who died after: the ones who died after are able to
  be members of the 144,000.

However 2 Kings 2:11 says that Elijah was taken to heaven:

  And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold,
  there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them
  both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.

How do Jehovah's Witnesses view the case of Elijah if only those who died after Jesus' death are among the ones that go to heaven?

Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that Elijah indeed experienced a miraculous event when he was caught up into the heavens.
As all bible students know there are different meanings of heaven in the scriptures.
Your question indicates that you are of the belief that the heavens that Elijah ascended to was the dwelling place of God and angels. Jehovah’s witnesses do not share this view.
Rather we believe that it was into the atmospheric heavens where clouds are found that the miracle took Elijah.
After being caught away to the clouds he was transported to a different location on earth.
Insight on the Scriptures published by Jehovah’s Witnesses speaks about the different meanings of heaven in the Bible and on the ascension of Elijah it says:

Ascension to Heaven. At 2 Kings 2:11, 12 the prophet Elijah is described as “ascending in the windstorm to the heavens.” The heavens here referred to are the atmospheric heavens in which windstorms occur, not the spiritual heavens of God’s presence. Elijah did not die at the time of such ascension, but he continued to live for a number of years after his heavenly transportation away from his successor Elisha. Nor did Elijah upon death ascend to the spiritual heavens, since Jesus, while on earth, clearly stated that “no man has ascended into heaven.” (Joh 3:13; see ELIJAH No. 1 (Elisha Succeeds Him).) At Pentecost, Peter likewise said of David that he “did not ascend to the heavens.” (Ac 2:34) In reality, there is nothing in the Scriptures to show that a heavenly hope was held out to God’s servants prior to the coming of Christ Jesus. Such hope first appears in Jesus’ expressions to his disciples (Mt 19:21, 23-28; Lu 12:32; Joh 14:2, 3) and was fully comprehended by them only after Pentecost of 33 C.E.—Ac 1:6-8; 2:1-4, 29-36; Ro 8:16, 17.
The Scriptures show that Christ Jesus was the first one to ascend from earth to the heavens of God’s presence. (1Co 15:20; Heb 9:24) By such ascension and his presentation of his ransom sacrifice there, he ‘opened the way’ for those who would follow—the spirit-begotten members of his congregation. (Joh 14:2, 3; Heb 6:19, 20; 10:19, 20) In their resurrection these must bear “the image of the heavenly one,” Christ Jesus, in order to ascend to the heavens of the spirit plane, for “flesh and blood” cannot inherit that heavenly Kingdom.—1Co 15:42-50.


Is Leviticus 18:22 condemnation of homosexuality only for idolatrous rituals? I have heard some progressive Christians claim that Leviticus 18:22 was only condemning homosexual activities for idolatrous rituals. I know that 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 was using the word "arsenokoitai" which came from Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13.
In Leviticus 18:2-3 it says:
“Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, I am the Lord your God. You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you. You shall not walk in their statutes."
There are some people who say that because of these verses, it was condemning the idolatrous practices in Egypt and Canaan which included homosexual sex. Therefore, in this context, it is only referring to homosexual activity that has idolatrous rituals involved. God was only prohibiting the rituals they did in Egypt and Canaan.
We also see in Leviticus 18:21, the verse before, it says:
"You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the Lord."
Some have suggested that because of the context, Leviticus 18:22 is not prohibiting loving same-sex relationships but only ones that relate to pagan rituals. Is this true? If not, why?

There are argumentations that support the sense that this prohibition is to be seen in the context of Canaanite practice, probably first discussed by John E. Hartley.
An exhaustive discussion supporting this theses is published by Luis Quinones-Roman.
This interpretation is embedded into a higher sense (citation from above)

It  is  not  foreseeable  to  believe  that  YHWH  abominates
individuals  that  are  homosexuals.  I take the stand that
homosexuality is not an abomination because both heterosexuals and
homosexuals were created equal before God. Both deserve the natural
and divine right to love whoever they want.

The higher sense is actually the motivation for reviewing the interdiction of homosexuality in modern Jewish and Christian communities; it is not based on the re-interpretation of the law.
It is possible that the interdiction refers somehow to contrast to pagan practice of worship. The interpretation that the interdiction only applied to pagan practice of worship is however rather constructed and not supported by the majority of Christian and Jewish theologists.


How are devout Christians viewed by other believers, when they are not delivered from "evil"? If a devout Christian is not "delivered" in this life, how are they viewed by other Christians?

For example, a black Christian pastor in segregated America, who truly loves the Lord, is killed by the KKK....or a Christian fed to lions in ancient Rome.

How are the events thought of by fellow believers? (is it considered the devil winning a round, the persons fault,a question, expected reality, God's act, etc?)

From a purely Biblical perspective, there is nothing in God's word that promises that we will not suffer.   In fact, it teaches the opposite.

From a tract put out by Living Waters Publications:

  It is true that God loves you, but you decide if His plan is
  "wonderful." If you have heard that happiness comes through Jesus
  Christ, you may like to think again. The first thing Jesus said of the
  Apostle Paul (who wrote most of the New Testament) was that He would
  show him "how great things he must suffer for (His) name's sake.1
  Three times Paul was beaten with rods, once he was stoned, three times
  he suffered shipwreck, a night and a day he spent in the sea. There
  were times when Paul was so unhappy, he wanted to die.2

  The Bible says, "All who live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer
  persecution."3 It says we enter the Kingdom of God through much
  distress,4 and that we were appointed to afflictions.5

  Jesus said if we followed Him we would be reviled, persecuted, hated,
  and all manner of evil would be said against us falsely, for His sake.
  He warned that we would have to take up our cross daily, deny
  ourselves and follow Him, saying, "In the world you shall have
  tribulation," and even that we may be called to die for our faith.6
  :
  That is 100% true.  Being delivered from Evil is a valid prayer request, but we understand that it doesn't mean we will always be delivered.  Someone on this site recently said "God isn't some Genie that goes around granting wishes."  That's also 100% true.

The question appears to come from the perspective that "God has a wonderful plan for your life" and also a variation of the Prosperity Doctrine (where all our evils are caused by our own sin, but if we are just, we'll get whatever we desire).

I've always had a problem with both teachings. For a more lengthy discussion on the topic, I recommend Ray Comfort's book on the topic, freely available online in pdf format.

Some relevant verses:

  (Mark 8:34-36) If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life
  will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s
  will save it. For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world
  and forfeit his soul?

  (Acts 9:15-16) But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings,
  and the children of Israel: For I will shew him how great things he
  must suffer for my name's sake.

  (John 15:18-21) If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me
  before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love
  its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of
  the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I
  said to you... If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you...
  because they do not know Him who sent Me.

Also, the book of Job is a pretty good example of someone that God loves,  suffering because God allowed it.  We are reminded in that story that God is sovereign, and that He allows suffering for His purposes.

Suffering increases faith, encourages reliance on God, and destroys pride.  In short, pain makes you stronger and better.  It refines us as a fire refines fine metals:

  (Isaiah 48:10)
  Behold, I have refined thee, but not with silver; I have
  chosen thee in the furnace of affliction.

So, in short, when we see Believers not "delivered from Evil" we don't think it's unnatural.  And we darn well should be thinking "what can I do to provide comfort or help".


According to premillennialism, are the nations in the New Earth still procreating? This question mainly deals with Revelation 21:24–27, but it is probably helpful to read from Rev 20 to the end also.

Revelation 21 (KJV)

  24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of
  it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into
  it.  25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there
  shall be no night there.  26 And they shall bring the glory and honour
  of the nations into it.  27 And there shall in no wise enter into it
  any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or
  maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

I understand that these nations of the new earth are not procreating, however, there are supposedly people who are evil that are being kept out of the holy city at this time.  Where are they coming from if no one is having babies?

You would think, that at this time all the people that are found in the Lamb's book of Life have eternal bodies, and the others are in the lake of fire.  Somehow these evil people in question should be in the lake of fire instead of being kept out of the gates of the holy city of the new earth, one would think.  The mere problem that sin is still with us in the new earth seems, well, weird.

A good answer will be from the premillennial perspective, pre- or post-tribulation shouldn't matter.

In the historicist framework of Ellis Skolfield, Christ returns at the last trumpet (the seventh trumpet) and the time of the new Earth is immediately ushered in. The righteous receive their new bodies, while the damned are immediately dispatched to Hell. No one from this time forward has any children. In Matthew 22:29-30 it says:

  Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the
  Scriptures or the power of God. At the resurrection people will
  neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels
  in heaven.

According to Skolfield, the tribulation and the millennial reign of Christ coexist simultaneously. Thus we are currently in the midst of the tribulation, and we are also in the Kingdom of God, because Christ ascended to the throne about 2,000 years ago.

As for the length of the time periods, he argues that the word for millennium used in the Greek, chillioi, is an indefinite plural, hence can refer to multiple thousands of years.

As for the time when the nations will once again be deceived, he argues that over the course of the last century, especially since the founding of Israel, many nations (faithful or not) that once gave lip service to Christ being their ultimate sovereign have since abandoned even the pretense of following him.


How can Jesus be both root and offspring of David if he was only a man and did not pre-exist his incarnation? There is a related question here:  hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/56196/…
We are told in various imagery that Messiah would come in the line of David and be a branch or rod that sprouts from Jesse's roots:

And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:  And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord; - Isaiah 11:1-2

Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they are men wondered at: for, behold, I will bring forth my servant the Branch. - Zechariah 3:8

And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the Lord of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The Branch; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the Lord: - Zechariah 6:12

Later, in Revelation, we are told that Jesus is the root of David:

And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof. - Revelation 5:5

And then Jesus himself claims to be both the root and the offspring of David:

I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. - Revelation 22:16

This is much like when Jesus asked about whose son the Christ is "“How is it then that David, in the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying, “‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet”’? If then David calls him Lord, how is he his son?” (Matthew 22:43-45).
For those who believe Jesus did not pre-exist his incarnation, How can Jesus be the root of David if he is David's offspring?

Well,
Though I believe Jesus preexisted his birth, I can provide away the verse be true without him doing so.
When considering Jesus as the root of David When you think "root of David" you may be thinking in reference to David's past human birth. However, Jesus has created for us a new birth in the resurrection. Indeed Jesus, himself born again, is declared begotten of God at his resurrection:

Acts 13:32-33 32 And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers, 33 this he has fulfilled to us their children by RAISING Jesus, AS ALSO IT IS WRITTEN in the second Psalm,
“‘You are my Son,
today I have begotten you.’

And indeed we do not fully become adopted into the family of God until our physical bodies are recreated:

Romans 8:23 23 And not only the creation but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.

We are new creatures in Christ when we are reborn first spiritually but ultimately physically at the resurrection when God brings forth the New Heaven and New Earth.

2 Peter 3:13 13 But according to his promise we are waiting for new
heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

Indeed we must be so recreated for our very physical existence is far too corrupt for the kingdom of God.

1 Corinthians 15:50-57 50
I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the
kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51
Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all
be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last
trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised
imperishable, and we shall be changed. 53 For this perishable body
must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on
immortality. 54 When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the
mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is
written:        “Death is swallowed up in victory.” 55 “O death, where
is your victory? O death, where is your sting?” 56 The sting of death
is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, who
gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

This victory over death by our resurrection and rebirth is obtained through the person of Jesus the firstfruit of the new creation:

1 Corinthians 15:20-23 20 But in fact, Christ has been raised from the
dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For as by a
man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.
23 But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his
coming those who belong to Christ.

Jesus has become to us through the new creation the new Adam,

1 Corinthians 15:45-49 45 Thus it is written, “The first man Adam
became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46
But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then
the spiritual. 47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the
second man is from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so also are
those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are
those who are of heaven. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the man
of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.

And because Jesus is the new creation Adam, we have a new creation genealogy that begins with Christ as the root.
Hebrews makes it clear that this benefit not only applies to New Testament Christians but that also the salvation of the Old Testament saints (including David) similarly rest on the new life in Jesus. Notice how the Hebrew writer speaks of the Old Testament saints this way:

Hebrews 11:39-40 39 And all these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised, 40 since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect.

So they are made perfect the same way that we are, in the resurrection, in order to inherit the promises of the kingdom.
Therefore, the root of their new birth in the new creation, as resurrected saints, is the reborn, resurrected, & recreated Jesus himself and, in that way, Jesus can be the root of his ancestors he does not predate except by predating them and us all in the New Creation as God's firstborn.


Are Catholics allowed to entertain that the Old Vulgate might contains errors? In Decrees of the First Vatican Council (1868) in Session 3, Chapter 2 "On Revelation", items 6-7 state:

The complete books of the old and the new Testament with all their parts, as they are listed in the decree of the said council and as they are found in the old Latin Vulgate edition, are to be received as sacred and canonical.  These books the church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the church.

I cannot tell if a Papal Encyclical is the same as infallible statements which are Fides ecclesiastica or ex-cathedra or if they contain such infallible statements.  If not, it appears as though an encyclical statement still represents the end of theological debate, as per Pope Pius XII in Humani generis (which is a Papal Encyclical itself):

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" (Luke 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.

As I cannot ascertain the difference between an infallible statement and a statement which closes a topic to theological discussion the question is:
Given declarations in the encyclical of Vatican I regarding the Old Latin Vulgate (whether these declarations are dogma or not, I cannot tell), are Catholics allowed to entertain that this translation contains errors, considering that another Encyclical states that encyclical statements close their subject matter to debate?

Are Catholics allowed to entertain that the Old Vulgate might contains errors?
The Old Vulgate Bible translation of St. Jerome is free of errors on faith and moral. Like any translation there may be technical error of nuance of given words or expressions that may have been translated better.
Pope Pius XII declared the Vulgate as "free from error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals" in his encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu:

Hence this special authority or as they say, authenticity of the Vulgate was not affirmed by the Council particularly for critical reasons, but rather because of its legitimate use in the Churches throughout so many centuries; by which use indeed the same is shown, in the sense in which the Church has understood and understands it, to be free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals; so that, as the Church herself testifies and affirms, it may be quoted safely and without fear of error in disputations, in lectures and in preaching [...]"

The inerrancy is with respect to faith and morals, as it says in the above quote: "free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals" but not in a philological sense:

[...] and so its authenticity is not specified primarily as critical, but rather as juridical.

So yes Catholics may hold that there could be technical biblical inaccuracies in translation within the Old Vulgate, but no outlandish errors.
For many centuries, it effectively was the Bible for countless Christians.
Through long ages in the west, educated people could read Latin but not Greek or Hebrew, and there were few Bible translations in the vernacular available.

The Original Languages
Despite its influential role, the Vulgate is a translation.
It thus does not contain the text of the Bible in the original languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek).
While it can play a useful role as a translation, it cannot replace the original language texts.
This is an important point, because some Catholics have placed so much stress on the Vulgate that some people have been confused on this point.
Trent’s Statement
To see this, let’s start by looking at what the Council of Trent had to say regarding the matter:
[This] sacred and holy Synod—considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic—ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever [Decree Concerning the Edition and Use of the Sacred Books, 1546].
Or, more simply:
[This Synod] ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition . . . be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic.
“Authentic” in this context means “authoritative.” So Trent is saying that, of the Latin editions available in its day, the old Vulgate was to be considered the authoritative edition for use in lectures, debates, sermons, and expositions.
Note the qualifiers: “out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation.”
Trent isn’t saying anything about original language editions. It’s just talking about Latin ones.
It also isn’t saying that the old Vulgate can’t be superseded later by a newer Latin translation.
Both of these points will be important.
Pius XII’s Statement
In 1943, Pope Pius XII commented on Trent’s statement, writing:
And if the Tridentine Synod wished “that all should use as authentic” the Vulgate Latin version, this, as all know, applies only to the Latin Church and to the public use of the same Scriptures; nor does it, doubtless, in any way diminish the authority and value of the original texts.
For there was no question then of these texts, but of the Latin versions, which were in circulation at that time [Divino Afflante Spiritu 21].
Here Pius XII does two important things.
First, he makes the point we’ve already mentioned—that the Vulgate does not “in any way diminish the authority and value of the original texts” (i.e., the ones in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek).
Second, he clarifies that Trent’s declaration “as all know, applies only to the Latin Church.”
This is important because the Latin Church is not the whole of the Catholic Church. - Is the Vulgate the Catholic Church’s Official Bible?

St. Jerome was commissioned by the Church to translate the Bible into Latin. Infallibility of the pope extends to faith and morals, not biblical translations or translators.
Please note I am only dealing with the Old Vulgate in the Latin of St. Jerome. The Duoay-Rheims Bible is an English translation of the the Old Latin Vulgate.


Why did the KJV translators translate יהוה on the extremely rare occasion as IEHOVAH rather than LORD? The KJV translators almost always translated the Tetragrammaton into English as "LORD" (all capital letters).

For example, in Deut. 6:4:

But, on the rare occasion—extremely rare—they chose instead to write "IEHOVAH" instead of "LORD."

Now, this question is NOT about the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton. The question is, why did the KJV translators seemingly break their rule of writing "LORD" for the Tetragrammaton in these instances?

For example,

in Exo. 6:3:

in Psa. 83:18:

in Isa. 12:2:

in Isa. 26:4:

The reason is that "Jehovah" (or any transliteration) does belong there, and in these specific cases, the replacement would sound strikingly incorrect.

Exo 6:3: And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, but the Name of God Almighty, but by my name LORD was I not knowen to them

If both occurences were to be understood as "title", "authority", then the phrase would sound very incorrect. Thus, the correct interpretation is to treat "the name" as title, but "my name" as God's personal name:

And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, but the Name of God Almighty, but by my name Jehovah was I not knowen to them

Psa. 83:18: That men may knowe, that thou, whose name is Jehovah, art the most high over all the earth

sounds much more reasonable than

That men may knowe, that thou, whose name is Lord, art the most high over all the earth

Isa. 12:2:, Isa. 26:4:

for the Lord Jehovah is my strength.

Well, you just can't say "Lord Lord" here, and it's very hard to hide the fact that the original text uses a personal name here. Different translations used phrases like "Lord, the Lord himself"[NIV], "Lord God" or "GOD the LORD"
Now: The original says "יָהּ יְהוָה"("Yah Yehwah"), so the most correct translation could be along the lines of "Jah, Jehovah" - showing Isaiah's very deep relation to his God, Jehovah:

Look! God is my salvation. I shall trust and be in no dread; for Jah Jehovah is my strength and [my] might, and he came to be the salvation of me. -- Is.12:2 [New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures]

Now, the correct question is: why did the translators have such a rule in the first place? Why not translate יְהוָה as Jehovah or Jahveh?
Judaism 101 says:

Jews do not casually write any Name of God. This practice does not come from the commandment not to take the Lord's Name in vain, as many suppose. In Jewish thought, that commandment refers solely to oath-taking, and is a prohibition against swearing by God's Name falsely or frivolously (the word normally translated as "in vain" literally means "for falsehood").
Judaism does not prohibit writing the Name of God per se; it prohibits only erasing or defacing a Name of God. However, observant Jews avoid writing any Name of God casually because of the risk that the written Name might later be defaced, obliterated or destroyed accidentally or by one who does not know better.
The commandment not to erase or deface the name of God comes from Deut. 12:3. In that passage, the people are commanded that when they take over the promised land, they should destroy all things related to the idolatrous religions of that region, and should utterly destroy the names of the local deities. Immediately afterwards, we are commanded not to do the same to our God. From this, the rabbis inferred that we are commanded not to destroy any holy thing, and not to erase or deface a Name of God.

...

The Mishnah confirms that there was no prohibition against pronouncing The Name in ancient times. In fact, the Mishnah recommends using God's Name as a routine greeting to a fellow Jew. Berakhot 9:5. However, by the time of the Talmud, it was the custom to use substitute Names for God. Some rabbis asserted that a person who pronounces YHVH according to its letters (instead of using a substitute) has no place in the World to Come, and should be put to death. Instead of pronouncing the four-letter Name, we usually substitute the Name "Adonai," or simply say "Ha-Shem" (lit. The Name).
...

(link, emphasis added)
Related: Should the Name Jehovah Appear in the New Testament?


When was Satan cast out of heaven according to Catholics? Revelation 12:9 speaks of Satan being cast out of heaven to the earth.
The book of Job indicates that Satan was able to enter in among the other angels at that time.
Some traditions say Satan was cast out at the time of the fall in Eden.
 When according to Catholic teaching was Satan kicked out of heaven permanently?

At the moment of Creation, evil was separated from Righteousness.

In Ephesians chapter 3, Paul writes about the eternal plan of God: "v10 (God's) intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms (Satan and other angels in Job ch 1&2 etc.), v11 according to his eternal purpose that he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord. v12 In him and through faith in him we may approach God with freedom and confidence." (NIV; parenthetical notes are mine)

The 'when' of Satan's fall must be viewed in the context of God's eternal plan. Timing is a tricky thing. If you are viewing Satan's fall from a heavenly perspective, outside of time, it is like a lightening flash (Luke 10:18). If you are viewing it from a 'Creation' perspective, it's like a sequential argument (Job 1 and 2...) or a series of timely events (Revelation 12). Notice that Satan was created as Lucifer (Isaiah 14:12 KJV), the greatest created moral being. He became Satan when he rebelled against God. Before Creation, the only thing that existed was God... Perfection...! In Creation God made 'space' for something 'not God' to exist. Creation is not Heaven, and moral beings are not God; but we (and angels) have the ability to 'know God'; and involve ourselves with God... So in Creation we are suspended between Perfection... on the one hand, and abysmal imperfection, evil... on the other hand. This conflict between good and evil works itself out, in time, in the perfecting of our faithfulness. So in Job, God has provided the means for Job to 'maintain his integrity'; in the sin offering. In Job there is a poetic conflict between integrity and iniquity; blessings and cursing; self righteousness and the Righteousness of God, good and evil...(etc.)

Before Creation, according to His eternal plan, God knew the implications of Creating moral beings with the capacity to choose or refuse Him. And in the Atonement, the Sin Offering, the Messiah... the Creator provided the means by which moral beings can be 'right' before Him. There was no 'plan B'. So, from a heavenly perspective, at the moment of Creation, there is a separation of good and evil, like a flash... and God himself is there to provide for man and angels... From a Creation perspective, evil is at work, in Satan,  persuading Adam and Eve, and Judas and Peter... And Jesus instructs us to pray: "...deliver us from the evil one..."


What is the basis for the argument that Jesus DID NOT have the ability to sin or give in to temptation? While some people believe that Jesus could have given in to the temptations He suffered and sinned, others do not.  They believe that Jesus could suffer temptation, but did not have the capacity to give in to them and actually commit sin.

Therefore, the redemption of mankind was never really in doubt, because Jesus was never going to sin.

What are the theological arguments in support of this position?

Of the people who believe Jesus was capable of sinning, there are some who have the mistaken notion that in order to qualify as "real" and "genuine" a temptation must have at least a chance--regardless of how miniscule the chance might be--of causing the person who is being tempted, to sin. In other words, according to that notion, if there is no possibility whatsoever for a person to fail the temptation, then the temptation does not qualify as a temptation.
That notion is wrong not only as it applies to us mere mortals, each of whom has given in to temptation at least once in our lives, but also as it applies to the eternal Son of God who never once gave in to temptation.
The writer to the Hebrews makes this very clear:

For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin (4:15 RSV, my italics).

For Jesus simply to sympathize with us in our weakness, all he would need to do is experience the same temptations we experience. There is no need for him to be able to (or have the capacity to) give in to the temptation for him to feel what the temptation is like, nor for that matter do we have to give in to the temptation in order to say we've been tempted. Just as Jesus chose not to give in, so we too can choose not to give in. Where we and Jesus differ in this regard is that we inevitably gave in to temptation and sinned, all of us just once, and I imagine most of us many, many more times than once.
Where Jesus was different from us in this regard is that he alone among all the human beings ever born was born of the seed of a woman and not the seed of a man. Jesus' conception in the womb of the virgin Mary was a singular, never-to-be-repeated event. All other human beings who have ever lived (or ever will live) were conceived when the seed of a man united with the egg of a woman. Jesus, however, as Genesis 3:15 put it in prophetic form, would one day be "the seed of the woman" and would deal a death blow to the original instigator of rebellion against God, none other than Satan himself.
As the first and representative man for the human race, Adam, when he sinned by disobeying God he not only signed his own death warrant, which God had promised would be the punishment for disobedience, he also bequeathed death to each subsequent generation. The Bible puts it this way:

. . . in Adam all die . . . (1 Corinthians 15:22a RSV).

Paul also laid out in lawyer-like fashion in Romans the following phrases (which  I've taken the liberty to excerpt from Chapter 5):

through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— . . .

by the transgression of the one the many died

judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation

by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one

through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men

through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners

sin reigned in death

Jesus, on the other hand, was not a child of Adam. Paul refers to Jesus as the second Adam who alone did what the first Adam could not do; namely, live a life of perfect obedience to God. Jesus' perfect obedience made possible his substitutionary death as "the Lamb of God who bears away the sins of the world" (John 1:29 and 36).
In short, as you observed in your question, "the redemption of mankind was never really in doubt," and the reason is that Jesus, who knew no sin became sin for us on the cross, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God (2 Corinthians 5:21).


Does Reformed Baptist Protestantism reject Annihilationism? John Stott argued against the eternal punishment of unbelievers whereas J I Packer argued for the view that Jesus Christ warned of the eternal punishment of those who reject himself and his gospel.
What is the current view of Reformed Baptist Protestantism on this matter ?

The traditional view of Reformed Baptists (and the Reformed view more generally, including of Anglicans) is that of eternal punishment.
Take, for example, the Westminster Confession of Faith. This taken from Chapter VI:

Chapter VI.
Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and of the Punishment thereof.
... VI. Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto,(n) doth, in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner;(o) whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God,(p) and curse of the law,(q) and so made subject to death,(r) with all miseries spiritual,(s) temporal,(t) and eternal.(u)

This is consonant with other statements of faith, for example the Anglican Book of Homilies, book 1, homily II "On the Misery of Mankind":

Thus we haue heard how euill we be of our selues, how of our selues, and by our selues, we haue no goodnes, helpe nor saluation, but contrariwise, sinne, damnation, and death euerlasting

This has been challenged on a number of occasions, such as Anglican Ian Paul. Various books and articles have also been written defending the traditional view, such as Hell Under Fire, written from within a Reformed tradition.
So I would say there are those within Reformed circles who question eternal punishment and hold to something more like annihilationism. But this is not the traditional, confessional view, and there are many in the tradition who defend the traditional view.


How are passages vetted for inclusion in officially sanctioned liturgical readings? Inspired by this question, I am very interested to find out how specific passages are "vetted" for inclusion into official church liturgical use?

I realize this process may be different for Roman Catholic, Anglican, Episcopalian, etc traditions. Not relevant to this question would be any denomination/tradition that just reads from the Bible based on a cycle (eg, one chapter per Sunday in consecutive order), or on the pastor's volition.

I am a member of the United Methodist Church, so my answer will be from that perspective.

In the United Methodist Church, preachers preach from the Lectionary.

According to Wikipedia:

  The Revised Common Lectionary was the product of a collaboration between the North American Consultation on Common Texts (CCT) and the International English Language Liturgical Consultation (ELLC). After a nine-year trial period, it was publicly released in 1994. The CCT membership includes the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops as well as many traditional "mainline" or "liturgically-based" American and Canadian Protestant denominations such as Lutheran, North American Anglican (Episcopalian), Presbyterian, and more loosely Methodist and/or Seventh Day Adventist. The CCT thereby represents the majority of American and Canadian Christians and has been widely adopted in Great Britain.

The Consultation on Common Texts explains the process by which the current Revised Common Lectionary came about in this PDF file.  It appears to be a process of collaboration and suggestions from the various denominations.

The Revised Common Lectionary appears to be a product of the majority of American Christian faiths.

For those not familiar with the Lectionary, the book contains 4 Bible readings for each Sunday for a 3 year cycle.  The church year starts with the first Sunday of Advent, which this year happens to be Sunday, November 27, 2011.  This new year is Year B, or the 2nd year of the 3 year cycle.

A preacher can use any or all of the 4 Bible readings in a worship service, and still be considered as preaching from the Lectionary.


When is the end of the Christmas season for Latin Rite Catholics? When does Christmas really end for Catholics?  I know it starts different for most Eastern Orthodox, but for Latin Rite Catholics, like myself, I don't know when it actually is supposed to end. At the very least I know it's over by Ash Wednesday, but there there seem to be very real reasons to celebrate from

December 25 - January 1st (the octave of Christmas, ending with the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God)
December 25 - January 6th (the 12 days of Christmas, ending with the Epiphany)
December 25 - February 2nd (40 day celebration, ending with the Presentation)

So, I guess the real question is who has the stamina to party Catholic style for 40 days, especially after the hubbub leading up to Christmas, but in a liturgical sense, when does the Christmas season end?

From Wikipedia:

The Christmas season immediately follows Advent. The traditional Twelve Days of Christmas begin with Christmas Eve on the evening of December 24 and continue until the feast of Epiphany. The actual Christmas season continues until the Feast of the Baptism of Christ, which in the present form of the Roman Rite is celebrated on the Sunday after 6 January.
In the pre-1970 form, this feast is celebrated on 13 January, unless 13 January is a Sunday, in which case the feast of the Holy Family is celebrated instead. Until the suppression of the Octave of the Epiphany in the 1960 reforms, 13 January was the Octave day of the Epiphany, providing the date for the end of the season.

The period following Christmas is called Ordinary Time or Time after Epiphany.


What is the substance/nature of God based on Trinitarians? Trinitarians believe that there is one substance of God subsisting in three distinct persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

My question is what is this substance/nature of God based on Trinitarians?

The question asked seeks for both Biblical reference and Patristic reference.

The Trinity; or the God head; as we Baptist often refer has no material substance since He (as we often refer to God) is a Spirit. But does have substance in the Spiritual Realm.
According to Merriam Webster:

SUB'STANCE, n. [L. substantia, substo; sub and sto, to stand.]

In a general sense, being; something existing by itself; that which really is or exists; equally applicable to matter or spirit. Thus the soul of man is called an immaterial substance, a cogitative substance, a substance endued with thought. We say, a stone is a hard substance, tallow is a soft substance.

It is this definition of substance that we must assign to the Trinity.
Notice that in Latin the it means to stand, and if we apply that standard to the Spiritual Realm to which the Trinity belongs it has meaning other than in the material realm.

Exodus 3:14 NKJV  And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And He said, "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.' "

This is what God meant when:

Genesis 1:26 NKJV  Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

Since God has no Material substance what He must be referring to is his Spiritual substance or what could be called his nature referring to his Spiritual characteristics. When Moses asked him who should he say sent him; the LORD replied:

Exodus 3:14 NKJV  And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And He said, "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.' "

God knew that if He were to present himself in some form, which they would understand, it would of necessity have some resemblance to something their minds could envision, and would therefore require some material reference.
Even to this day we have no real concept of the Trinity since we refer to it as **the Father, the son, and the Holy Ghost. None of these is truly descriptive of God in any of his three forms. The minds of man cannot adequately imagine something which has no shape or form, but exists as pure intelligence and power. The same is true of man's soul which is truly God's image just as Webster described it:

Thus the soul of man is called an immaterial substance, a cogitative substance, a substance endued with thought.

In fact the human mind is incapable of envisioning nothing, it has to have some reference to compare, and there is no counterpart to nothing. as an exercise try to conjure up in your mind neither darkness or light, but pure intelligence, and you will always seek something to compare it to, and yet that is the realm in which God exists.
I among others have attempted to envision God in that way, but are unable to, since it is totally contrary to the World we know. let alone trying to imagine it existing in three parts.
The substance/nature of God is truly inexplicable and is why God said:

Isaiah 55:8 and 9 NKJV  "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," says the LORD. 9  "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts.

Hope this helps


Reconcile God's sovereignty with Satan being the god of this world In Matthew 4:8-9 we read about the temptation of Christ by Satan:

  Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and
  showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. And he said
  to Him, “All these things I will give You if You will fall down and
  worship me.”

In Christ's response, he did not challenge Satan's authority to make such a claim.

Taken together with 2 Cor 4:4 where Satan is described as "the god of this world" it seems we can conclude that Satan is the ruler of the world.

How can we reconcile this with God's sovereignty?

This is a great question and one I had to take a few minutes to think through. I am Catholic and I think I have an answer for you- though there may be several others, possibly better ones.

Remember that Satan was one of the most powerful angels when he rebelled, and that he did not get stripped of his nature when he Fell. That means that Satan is an incredibly powerful being who, as seen in the Bible, can exert his angelic power in the planes of existence that humans inhabit (that is to say, the world of spirit and the world of matter). This is probably the way that Satan planned to follow through on his offer of world domination to Jesus.

Also, notice Satan wants Jesus to worship him. This implies that this is something he desires not only from Jesus, but from all humanity. What Satan has been doing since his Fall is pretend to be God Almighty, and treat the world like his playground. If Satan demands worship, this probably isn't the first time he tried to get it. This would be in keeping with St. Paul's comment "the god of this world". Who is the god of this world? Whatever everybody is worshipping. Be that other fallen angels, man's own desires, etc; it all leads back to Satan and his own agenda.

When Jesus comes to Earth, He's coming here like a rightful Prince come to reclaim His Father's throne from the usurper, Satan. God is sovereign, but that doesn't mean others aren't pretending that isn't so.


Fathers of the Desert story A Catholic friend of mine told me of a story from the Fathers of the Desert.

The story goes that one of the followers of the desert monasticism would sneak off at night seeking sin; but he would confess his sin to God each night on his return; because of this the brethren could not "see" his sin.  But one night whilst this chappy went on his "rounds" and upon returning he was tempted of the Devil that his sins could not be forgiven this time, and he believed it; because of this the brethren immediately could "see" the student's sin.

My question is as follows: Does anyone know of this account and where I might find a full account of this story in a book or some online resource?

I don't recall this story, but that doesn't mean anything.

The full text of the alphabetical collection of the Sayings of the Desert Fathers appears to be available here.  As far as I can tell, it is a verbatim version of the Cistercian Publications 1975 edition (at least the Indices seem to match).

The Evergetinos is an arrangement of teachings on various subjects from various sources, including the Desert Fathers, arranged by subjects ("hypotheses").  The first "hypothesis" seems to relate to your question:  "No one should despair ever, even if he has committed many sins, but should have hope that, through repentance, he shall be saved".  There are 6 stories from the Desert Fathers in this section:  one from Abba Mios, three from Abba Poimen, one from Abba Sisoes, and one anonymous.  But none of these are your story.  Will be interested to see if someone finds a better answer.


Why is the Jewish Passover on 28 March 2021 but Good Friday is on 2 April 2021? I've just noticed that the Jewish Festival of Passover falls on Sunday 28th March (2021), the night of the full moon, but the Christian Church is celebrating "Good Friday" on Friday 2 April (2021).
So the Christian celebration of Easter 2021 is a week late?  Why?

Why is the Jewish Passover on 28 March 2021 but Good Friday is on 2 April 2021?
Actually everything is in its’ proper place.
Easter is a “movable feast” and does not have a fixed date. However, it is always held on a Sunday between March 22 and April 25.
Over a 500-year period (from 1600 to 2099 AD), it just so happens that Easter will have most often been celebrated on either March 31 or April 16.
Easter is celebrated on the first Sunday following the full Moon that occurs on or just after the spring equinox.
According to a Fourth Century ruling, of the Council of Nicea, the date of Easter is set for the first Sunday following the Paschal Full Moon, which is the first full Moon of Spring, occurring on or shortly after the vernal equinox, or spring equinox. March 22 is the earliest Easter can occur on any given year, and April 25 is the latest. If that first spring full Moon occurs on a Sunday, then Easter will be observed the following Sunday.

The Date Of Easter And Its Controversies
Fixing the date on which the Resurrection of Jesus was to be observed and celebrated triggered a major controversy in early Christianity in which an Eastern and a Western position can be distinguished. The dispute, known as the Paschal controversies, was not definitively resolved until the 8th century. In Asia Minor, Christians observed the day of the Crucifixion on the same day that Jews celebrated the Passover offering—that is, on the 14th day of the first full moon of spring, 14 Nisan (see Jewish calendar). The Resurrection, then, was observed two days later, on 16 Nisan, regardless of the day of the week. In the West the Resurrection of Jesus was celebrated on the first day of the week, Sunday, when Jesus had risen from the dead. Consequently, Easter was always celebrated on the first Sunday after the 14th day of the month of Nisan. Increasingly, the churches opted for the Sunday celebration, and the Quartodecimans (“14th day” proponents) remained a minority. The Council of Nicaea in 325 decreed that Easter should be observed on the first Sunday following the first full moon after the spring equinox (March 21). Easter, therefore, can fall on any Sunday between March 22 and April 25.

The first full moon after the spring equinox of 2021 falls on March 28th, so everything is absolutely normal.
Easter never falls on the exact date of the first full moon of Spring, so as to avoid being celebrated at the same time as the Jewish Passover.


Is Christian mysticism an oxymoron or is it a legitimate path for a Christian? I've been in a debate online with another Christian of a different tradition (I'm Catholic, he is Baptist, I think) regarding mysticism, specifically Christian mysticism. He stated that mysticism is inherently pagan and non-Christian, and attempts to use the term Christian mysticism are essentially modern attempts to take a pagan concept and "Christianize" it. I believe that it is not necessarily unChristian, if it is done in a Christian manner. Christian mysticism and pagan mysticism may not be the same thing in practice, though similar in concept, where a Christian is experiencing a fuller communion with Christ but through Christ working in him, and a pagan using ritual to try and attain some deeper sense of the supernatural.

Is there such a thing as Christian mysticism? I've heard the term "mystic" used to describe some saints of the Church. Is this a fluke or is it legitimate? Or is it referring to something other than mysticism?

Christian Mysticism has a long and honourable tradition. You can read the histories of many holy Christian mystics. Wikipedia will give you a good starting point. Meditation is only one aspect. For a working definition, try: ""that part, or element, or Christian belief and practice that concerns the preparation for, the consciousness of, and the effect of [...] a direct and transformative presence of [the Christian] God" (Bernard McGinn). In effect mystics are those who make real and experience for themselves things that many Christians take as theoretical or abstract - e.g. the presence of God, union with God, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Here are some well-know people and practices that form part of the Christian Mystic tradition:

Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius Loyola
Meister Eckhart
Brother Lawrence
Julian of Norwich
Teresa of Avila
St John of the Cross
Thomas Merton


What is the Justification of a priest acting in persona Christi? What is the justification used in Catholicism to justify the doctrine of a priest acting in persona Christi?

Scriptural and catechismal references please.

In the Person of Christ

In the Catholic Church, the priest serving at the altar is considered to be acting in persona Christi Capitis, that is, "in the person of Christ, the Head [of the Church]." By this, the Church means that the priest and the bishop, when they carry out their priestly functions, do so as Christ's representatives (Benedict XVI, Munus docendi, General Audience, 14 September 2010). The belief that the priest acts in persona Christi Capitis  when carrying out the sacraments is old. There are dozens of excellent teachings from the Popes on this subject.

Pope Benedict XVI was careful to point out that priests do not represent Christ as if he was absent, for Christ is always present in the Church, but rather, the priest represents Christ as Christ represented the Father (Munus docendi, paragraphs 2, 3). Consider that Jesus "... is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being..." Hebrews 1:3a. (All Bible passages are taken from the Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition, of the Bible.) Also, "He is the image of the invisible God..." Colossians 1:15. Jesus, speaking about his teaching, said, "My teaching is not my own but his who sent me" (John 7:16). Moreover, in his High Priestly prayer, Jesus stated to the Father, with respect to his apostles who were soon to face severe trials upon his arrest and execution:

  Now they know that everything you have given me is from you; for the
  words that you gave to me I have given to them, and they have received
  them and know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed
  that you sent me. John 17:7-8.

Speaking to his apostles, Jesus said, "Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me, and whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me" Luke 10:16. Because Jesus is truly present in and with his apostles as they teach and make disciples, wherever they go (Matthew 28:16-20), any act for or against the apostle is an act for or against Jesus. (In a way, Matthew 28:16-20 applies to all believers, which is why Jesus could say to Saul on the Damascus Road in Acts 9:4, "Why are you  persecuting me?" Nevertheless, Jesus did not give all believers the authority that he gave the apostles in Luke 10:16, nor are all believers called to the ministerial priesthood.)

Furthermore, Jesus gave his apostles his own authority over sin when He said:
"Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you." When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." John 20:21-23.

We can see this reflected in St. Paul's second letter to the Church at Corinth, when he wrote, "Anyone whom you forgive, I also forgive. What I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ" (2 Corinthians 2:10). The phrase "in the presence" uses the Greek word prosōpon (pros=towards; ops=an eye, literally, towards the eye or face), which can be translated as appearance, presence, or person. Modern English translations of this passage mostly use "in the presence of Christ," but many older English translations used "in the person of Christ" (for example, the King James and Douay-Rheims translations). The idea St. Paul gives is that Christ is truly present in the act of forgiving the sinner. That is, Christ forgave the sinner through Paul for the sake of the sinner and for the sake of the Corinthian Church.

Finally, returning to the High Priestly prayer, Jesus told the Father that he had imparted the glory of the Father to all believers, and he prayed for perfect unity of all believers with each other and with the Father and the Son, as the Father and the Son unite perfectly in each other.

  ... that they all [all believers in Christ] may be one. As you,
  Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us,so that the
  world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given
  me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in
  them and you in me, that they may become completely one, so that the
  world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you
  have loved me. John 17:21-23.

Thus, returning to Pope Benedict XVI, "The Lord makes his own action present in the person who carries out these gestures [the priestly consecration of bread and wine at Eucharist, absolution for sins]" Munus docendi, paragraph 4. In other words, the priest is not the ambassador of a distant king, but being united fully with Christ in his office as priest, Christ is in the priest, and the work of the priest is the work of Christ, not symbolically, but in reality, because of the mystical union of the priest at the altar with Jesus Christ, our Great High Priest.

In the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), the specific paragraphs you should read are 1548 – 1551; however, the context for those four paragraphs is in paragraphs 1539 – 1553, and you might want to read all of them (about 4.5 printed pages in my copy of the Catechism).

  1548 In the ecclesial service of the ordained minister, it is Christ
  himself who is present to his Church as Head of his Body, Shepherd of
  his flock, high priest of the redemptive sacrifice, Teacher of Truth.
  This is what the Church means by saying that the priest, by virtue of
  the sacrament of Holy Orders, acts in persona Christi Capitis:

    "It is the same priest, Christ Jesus, whose sacred person his minister
    truly represents. Now the minister, by reason of the sacerdotal
    consecration which he has received, is truly made like to the high
    priest and possesses the authority to act in the power and place of
    the person of Christ himself (virtute ac persona ipsius Christi)."

    "Christ is the source of all priesthood: the priest of the old law was
    a figure of Christ, and the priest of the new law acts in the person
    of Christ."

  CCC, paragraph 1548.

Paragraph 1548 cites Lumen Gentium, paragraphs 10 and 28; Sacrosanctum concilium, paragraph 33; Christus Dominus, paragraph 11; and Presbyterorum ordinis, paragraphs 2 and 6, as authority for that statement. Moreover, the first block quoted passage in paragraph 1548 comes from Acta Apostolicae Sedis, volume 39 (1947), page 548, which cites St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, III, 22, 4c. The second block quoted passage in paragraph 1548, cites the same section from Summa Theologica. Furthermore, almost identical language is used by Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Mediator Dei, which is referred to with respect to the quotes from Summa Theologica.

In CCC 1549, the Catechism explains that priests and bishops are the visible sign of the presence of Christ as head of the church "... in the midst of the community of believers", citing Lumen Gentium, paragraph 21. In this paragraph, the Catechism also refers to St. Ignatius of Antioch's statement that the bishop is "the living image of God the Father" (citations omitted).

As paragraph 1550 of CCC makes clear, the human minister is not preserved from all sin, error, or human weakness. Rather, in all of the sacraments, the Holy Spirit guarantees "... that even the minister's sin cannot impede the fruit of grace..." In his other acts, the minister is not guaranteed by the Holy Spirit to be free of human weakness and may "... leave[] human traces that are not always signs of fidelity to the Gospel and consequently can harm the apostolic fruitfulness of the Church" (CCC 1550).

As I stated, there are numerous teachings on this subject by various popes and doctors of the Church. Much of the material is available on the Vatican website in English. Various Catholic apologetics sites also have bits and pieces of this material. I pulled from all of them in assembling this answer. I hope it helps answer your question adequately.

In Christ,
Hreodbeorht


Catholic marriage between a Catholic and baptised non-Christian How does Catholicism handle the desired marriage of a Catholic to a baptized, yet non-Christian partner?

As I understand it (i.e.: what Wikipedia told me), the Catholic church defines three versions of the Sacrament of Marriage:

"Canonical" marriage: an unmarried man and woman, each a baptized Catholic of age, are married by a Catholic cleric. The marriage is considered valid and sacramental.
"Mixed" marriage: one of the couple is a baptized non-Catholic Christian. Catholic marriage is still possible, but requires the special permission of a Catholic cleric. With this permission, the marriage is also considered valid and sacramental.
Disparitas cultus marriage: one of the couple is an unbaptized non-Christian. Catholic marriage is discouraged, but still technically possible via dispensation of disparitas cultus by a Catholic cleric. This dispensation can only be acquired if three conditions are fulfilled:

The Catholic party is allowed free exercise of their religion.
All offspring are to be raised as Catholics.
The Catholic member of the couple promises to do "all that is possible" to convert the non-Catholic member to the Catholic religion.

The marriage is then considered valid, but is not sacramental (instead considered "natural" marriage).

First off - are there any glaring errors in my understanding of Catholic marriage?

Second - what I find lacking from this definition is the case of a baptized non-Christian seeking marriage to a Catholic. My first thought was that this would fall under disparitus cultus marriage; the lack of one party's Christian faith would "invalidate" their baptism. However, this reasoning is clearly wrong; the Catholic church also holds that Baptism is "indelible" and cannot be repeated or undone [CCC 1280]. Given this belief (and the fact that the Catholic church does appear to recognize non-Catholic baptism under at least some conditions [CCC 1256]), what happens when one of the parties was baptized but is no longer a practicing Christian?

It can be helpful to consider a marriage at the moment of the exchange of consent—i.e., when it comes into existence—and distinguish that from the marriage as it endures through time.

The divisions that you refer to all have to do with whether the necessary conditions are in place in order for the marriage to come into existence in the first place; that is, they have to do with the exchange of consent.

Canonical form, disparity of cult, and mixed marriage

Regarding this, the Church essentially imposes two conditions for the validity of a marriage, which go beyond what the natural law requries: namely, (1) that the couple exchange their vows before a properly delegated witness (also known as the requirement of “canonical form;” see Code of Canon Law [CIC]  1108); and (2) that (assuming that at least one party is Catholic) both parties be baptized. (See CIC 1086.) Failure to comply with these conditions is an “impediment” to marriage: if a couple attempts to marry without complying, the marriage is invalid; that is, it never comes into existence.

(There are actually more impediments, but those two are the most commonly dealt with. Many other impediments can be found in the CIC 1083-1094. Note that these impediments generally apply only when one or both of the parties are Catholic; two non-Catholics are not bound by these requirements.)

Both of the requriements can be dispensed with by the local ordinary of the Catholic party (CIC 1078). Evidently, the second condition can only occur when one party is Catholic and the other is non-Christian, and the first condition ordinarly becomes an issue only when a Catholic wants to marry a non-Catholic.

A Catholic must request permission (licence) to marry a baptized non-Catholic; however, that permission is not necessary for the validity (existence) of the marriage, unlike the dispensations that I mentioned earlier. (See CIC 1124. Note that the text of this canon was changed in 2009.)

Requests for dispensations and permissions are part of the routine paperwork for marriage preparation. When a Catholic marries a non-Catholic, as the O.P. says, the Catholic party must declare that he will remove dangers of defecting from the Church, and must do all in his power (evidently, all that is reasonably in his power) to make sure that the childred are baptized and raised Catholic. There is actually no particular requirement to try to “convert” the non-Catholic spouse, nor must the non-Catholic party specifically promise not to prevent the Catholic party from practicing the faith (although doing so would seem to pose a “danger of defection.”) The conditions are spelled out in CIC 1125.

Note that as far as Church law is concerned, a person who has become a member of the Catholic Church is always considered a member of the Church for the purpose of marriage law, regardless of whether he practices or not, or whether he has joined another church. (See Benedict XVI’s motu proprio from 2009, which addresses this issue.) Likewise, there is no disparity of cult so long as the non-Catholic party is baptized (even if he does not practice any Christian religion). Hence, Church law does not have a special case for baptized non-Christians; they are treated like any other baptized non-Catholics.

(The baptism, however, must be one that is recognized by the Catholic Church as valid: specifically, it must be documented, and it must have been administered using the Trinitiarian formula, with at least the generic intention to do what the Church intends. If there is any doubt, the dispensation for disparity of cult should be sought.)

Sacramental vs. natural marriages

As I mentioned, these divisions have to do with how marriages come about. I think it would be a mistake to think of them as three different “kinds” of marriage. Rather, these distinctions describe three potential obstacles that might need to be overcome in order for a marriage to take place: two common impediments that need to be dispensed with (sometimes both at the same time), and one permission that might need to be requested.

If marriage is looked at as a permanent reality that endures in time, then in that case the Church does distinguish between two (not three) different kinds of marriages: natural marriages (those contracted when one or both of the parties is not baptized) and sacramental marriages (those contracted between two baptized persons, which automatically constitutes one of the seven Sacraments). This is explained very well in CIC 1055.


When was "time" created in Genesis? When was "time" created in Genesis? Was it on "day three", when day and night were created? Please present an overview of differing positions or at least the most common view.

This is from a literal perspective, where the 6-day Creation literally did happen.

This can only be answered from a literalist Young-Earth Creationist (YEC) perspective, because to all other perspectives it's a moot point, so I'll answer from that viewpoint.

I might as well throw in my usual disclaimer that I'm not debating whether the YEC view is true, this is just explaining the YEC view.  Such debates in comments are off-topic and not constructive per site guidelines, and not relevant to the question/answe at hand.  Even though I personally believe in the YEC view, I'm not defending it here, just explaining it.

Given the definition of time, taken from Mirriam-Webster:

  b : a nonspatial continuum
  that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from
  past through present to future

The very first event was in Genesis 1:1 (KJV)

  In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

This was the first event.  The universe didn't exist at all before this point. At this point, the universe began, thus, at this  point, the continuum of events began.  By definition, this is when time began.

Genesis 3 would mark the first normal, regular, repeatable events by which could measure time began, but time actually began with space and energy in Genesis 1:1, when God spoke the universe into existence.

This is similar to the answer given on the Answers in Genesis site - a Young-Earth Creation and apologetics organization:

  Although the argument is increasingly common, nowhere in the text does
  it say that time began on the fourth day. Instead, God made the sun,
  moon, and stars, which can be used to measure time. Time actually
  began "in the beginning" (Genesis 1:1), or else it would not have been
  "the beginning," which is a time reference. In fact, "day" is a time
  reference, and there are three of those prior to day four.

Revision of the first sentence:

This answer would also hold true for proponents of the gap theory, day-age theory, and others. The beginning is the beginning regardless of how long it's been since then.

It should probably be changed to "This can only be answered from tho position that you believe the Genesis account to be true, because to those that don't it's a moot point."


Hades or straight to heaven? A lot of modern Protestants (typically evangelical protestants) don't really teach an intermediate state or holding place. Many of the major protestant churches, Catholic, and Orthodox churches teach some type of holding place. I understand that Hades/Sheol is the "realm of the dead" and that there are two parts, Paradise and Gehenna. I have heard that the Bosom of Abraham was removed after Jesus descended into the realm of the dead. Is Hades (realm of the dead) still in existence until Judgement Day? I hope I worded this correctly.

Some Protestant Christians take Jesus' words in Luke 16:19-31 about the rich man and Lazarus to show that after the body dies, the soul exists in a conscious realm while awaiting the resurrection.  The rich man didn’t ask for his brothers to pray for his release from some purgatorial middle ground, thereby expediting his journey to heaven. He knew he was in hell, and he knew why. That’s why his requests were merely to be comforted and to have a warning sent to his brothers. He knew there was no escape. He was eternally separated from God, and Abraham made it clear to him that there was no hope of ever mitigating his pain, suffering, or sorrow:

  Abraham replied... between us [Abraham and Lazarus] and you [the rich man] a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us. (Luke 16:25-26)

Charles Haddon Spurgeon, U.K. Baptist preacher, had this to say about the Catholic view of Purgatory being an “intermediate state” where souls are purified before being allowed into heaven:

  Sermon # 384 by Charles Haddon Spurgeon - Full Assurance - April 28, 1861: “Purgatory is an impossibility, if full assurance be possible. If a man knows himself to be saved, then he is not to be troubled with a silly fear about waiting in the intermediate state, to be purified with fire, before he can enter into heaven...   I speak then, to the whole of you who never knew that you were saved; and first I say to you how foolish you are! O sirs! you are to die soon, and you are to go to heaven or to hell,—to splendours and glories, or to glooms and horrors, and yet you do not know which is to be your portion...  Sure to die, and yet not sure whether you are saved! Sure to appear before the bar of God, and yet not know whether you shall be acquitted or condemned?  O miserable men, uncertain as to your future state...  O my hearers, if you are not sure of being saved, what if you are sure of being damned! And you are either—mark this—not to your own apprehension perhaps but in fact; you are sure of one or the other. Which is it? Which must it be?  Source: https://www.spurgeon.org/resource-library/sermons/full-assurance#flipbook/

One Protestant view is that the transition to our eternal state takes place the moment we die (2 Corinthians 5:8; Luke 23:43; Philippians 1:23).  When believers die, they are immediately in the conscious fellowship and joys of heaven.  When unbelievers die, they are just as immediately in the conscious pain, suffering, and torment of hell.   These Bible verses speak of what happens after death and before the resurrection.  First, for believers who die, their expectation is to be with the Lord:

  Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord... For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due to him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad (2 Corinthians 5:6-10)

Second, those believers who had been killed because of their faith are under God’s altar in heaven and are described as “souls.”  If there is a biblical answer for the intermediate state, it would seem that believers in heaven are in spiritual/non-corporeal form until the resurrection:

  When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained.  They called out in a loud voice, “How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?”  Then each of them was given a white robe, and they were told to wait a little longer... (Revelation 6:9-11)

The concluding paragraph in an article about the “intermediate state” says this:

  The heaven that ultimately awaits believers is the New Heavens and New Earth (Revelation 21-22). Heaven will indeed be a physical place. Our physical bodies will be resurrected and glorified, made perfectly fit for eternity on the New Earth. Currently, heaven is a spiritual realm. It would seem, then, that there would be no need for temporary physical bodies if believers are in a spiritual heaven. Whatever the intermediate state is, we can rest assured that believers in heaven are perfectly content, enjoying the glories of heaven and worshiping the majesty of the Lord.  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/intermediate-state.html

The article in the link below explains, briefly, how there are many different views about what happens after death.  It draws this conclusion in the final paragraph:

  After death, a person resides in a “temporary” heaven or hell. After this temporary realm, at the final resurrection, a person’s eternal destiny will not change. The precise “location” of that eternal destiny is what changes. Believers will ultimately be granted entrance into the new heavens and new earth (Revelation 21:1). Unbelievers will ultimately be sent to the lake of fire (Revelation 20:11-15). These are the final, eternal destinations of all people—based entirely on whether or not they had trusted Jesus Christ alone for salvation (Matthew 25:46; John 3:36). Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/what-happens-death.html

Please be aware that this is only one Protestant view of what happens after the body dies.  You must draw your own conclusions, but please allow the Bible to inform you.


Jesus concealing his identity In Mark 8 and Matthew 16 after the feeding of the four thousand Peter declares Jesus as the messiah. Immediately after this Jesus tells his disciples not to reveal his identity.

How does this reconcile with how in John 6:40 Jesus reveals himself to Jews in the feeding of the five thousand which occurs before the feeding of the four thousand?

Even more problematic is how Jesus tells the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem that they search the scriptures for eternal life, when in actuality they speak of Jesus. This event occurs even before the feeding of the five thousand in John 5:39.

The problem of Jesus telling others not to reveal his identity is known as the 'Messianic Secret' and is a motif primarily found in the Gospel of Mark. According to William Wrede (Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien, 1902) the messianic secret is a prohibition to make known the messianic character of Jesus.

The following essay: 'Mark Essay 3: Is there a Messianic Secret in Mark?' says that Wrede rules out from history any theory such as a progression in the revealing of Jesus' personality, on the correct grounds that the time-framework of the gospels is imposed on the material by the evangelist, and must therefore be attributed to his theology rather than to historical reality.

The essay author concludes that the secret is a function of Mark's irony. If Mark is to maintain the dual level of discourse which is the basis of all irony, he cannot allow the actors in the drama to come too quickly to a realisation of Jesus' identity. Hence his insertion on various occasions of the secrecy commands (stylistically shown to be his own work) and of the parable-secret, which originally had a quite other import. Ian Wilson says, in Jesus: The Evidence, page 29, that while not necessarily giving this idea their full endorsement, most modern scholars accept that Wrede may well have been right in regarding Mark’s author as more concerned with putting over theology than with writing straight history. As the first narrative account of the mission of Jesus, Mark was often read to gentiles who had not yet become Christians, and the Secret added suspense and drama to the story, also perhaps explaining why this knowledge was not so widely circulated in the decades prior to authorship of the Gospel.

Matthew is a synoptic gospel and often follows Mark quite closely, including some references to the Messianic Secret, although fewer than in Mark itself. On the other hand, John's Gospel is further removed from Mark's Gospel and developed along different lines. In John, Jesus is not at all concerned with keeping his true identity secret. Scholars generally refer to the intended audience of John as the 'Johannine community', a group of Christians already familiar with the story of Christ. For them, the Messianic Secret would have made little  sense, whereas they may have found Jesus' bold assertions of his identity, as in John 5:39, to be inspirational.


What does it mean to be perfect? Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect. (Matthew 5:48 NKJV)

So, God expects us to be perfect. What is meant by "perfect"? How can any human be without error, this side of heaven?

This question might be more suitable for Hermeneutics. But, at the same time it has some important theological value.

There is a wiki page for this verse alone.

I am not expert in hermeneutics but I believe that this verse is equivalent to this verse.

  1 Peter 1:16 (NIV) for it is written: “Be holy, because I am holy.”

One of the most important mission of Jesus while He was on earth was to make us realize that we cannot meet the standard of God in our pursuit of holiness and perfection. Jesus pointed out that violating even one law means to violate the whole commandments. Even the sinful things we contemplate in our hearts without actually doing it is equivalent to committing it in real.

Jesus wanted to make us understand that we cannot meet the standard of God and that we need Jesus himself to set things right by pouring out His blood as a perpetual sacrifice to God. We do not need to achieve perfection but we need forgiveness.

Therefore, we need Jesus Christ in order to be counted as perfect in the eyes of God.

  Hebrews 5:8-9 (NIV) Son though he was, he learned obedience from what
  he suffered and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal
  salvation for all who obey him

  Hebrews 10:10  (NIV) And by that will, we
  have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ
  once for all.


Do Baptists teach that baptism by full water immersion is essential to salvation My understanding is that Baptists and Jehovah’s Witnesses reject infant baptism and advocate full water immersion of adults who fully understand what they are doing and what baptism means.

Believer's baptism (occasionally called credobaptism, from the Latin word credo meaning "I believe") is the Christian practise of baptism as is understood by many evangelical denominations, particularly those that descend from the Anabaptist and English Baptist tradition. According to their understanding, a person is baptized on the basis of his or her profession of faith in Jesus Christ and as admission into a local community of faith.  Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Believer%27s_baptism

The Baptist Union of Great Britain says this in their Declaration of Principle:

Christian Baptism is the immersion in water into the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, of those who have professed repentance towards God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ who 'died for our sins according to the Scriptures; was buried, and rose again the third day'.  Source: https://www.baptist.org.uk/Groups/220595/Declaration_of_Principle.aspx

Do Baptists believe adult water baptism is essential to salvation?  If not, why not?  This question is not about “right or wrong” but is seeking clarification on how Baptists view baptism in relation to salvation.

Most Baptist churches do not teach that Baptism is essential for salvation.
See https://www.christianity.com/church/denominations/the-most-well-known-protestant-denomination-10-things-everyone-should-know-about-baptists.html

Baptism is not a requirement for salvation and many churches do not
subscribe to infant baptism Instead, Baptism in the Baptist church is
a public expression of faith. “While it is personal, it is not
private,” an article from the Southern Baptist Conventions’ journal
says. “Such an act of obedience actually then clarifies their
testimony and opens the door for ministry in the church.”

I belong to an American Baptist Church. We require baptism for membership as a public declaration of the faith that already saved the believer.