From a Catholic viewpoint, why will there be a particular judgement and a general judgment? If we are judged by God at the moment of death, why is Jesus, at his Second Coming going to judge the living and the dead at the Last Judgment?

Catechism of the Council of Trent (The Roman Catechism) "Article 7: From thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead.:"

  Reasons For General Judgment

  It is necessary to show why, besides the particular judgment of each
  individual, a general one should also be passed upon all men.

  Those who depart this life sometimes leave behind them children who
  imitate their conduct, dependents, followers and others who admire and
  advocate their example, language and actions. Now by all these
  circumstances the rewards or punishments of the dead must needs be
  increased, since the good or bad influence of example, affecting as it
  does the conduct of many, is to terminate only with the end of the
  world. Justice demands that in order to form a proper estimate of all
  these good or bad actions and words a thorough investigation should be
  made. This, however, could not be without a general judgment of all
  men.

  Moreover, as the character of the virtuous frequently suffers from
  misrepresentation, while that of the wicked obtains the commendation
  of virtue, the justice of God demands that the former recover, in the
  public assembly and judgment of all men, the good name of which they
  had been unjustly deprived before men.

  Again, as the just and the wicked performed their good and evil
  actions in this life not without the cooperation of the body, it
  necessarily follows that these actions belong also to the body as to
  their instrument. It was, therefore, altogether suitable that the body
  should share with the soul the due rewards of eternal glory or
  punishment. But this can only be accomplished by means of a general
  resurrection and of a general judgment.

  Next, it is important to prove that in prosperity and adversity, which
  are sometimes the promiscuous lot of the good and of the bad,
  everything is done and ordered by an all-wise and all-just Providence.
  It was, therefore, necessary not only that rewards should await the
  just and punishments the wicked, in the life to come, but that they
  should be awarded by a public and general judgment. Thus they will
  become better known and will be rendered more conspicuous to all; and
  in atonement for the unwarranted murmurings, to which on seeing the
  wicked abound in wealth and flourish in honours even the Saints
  themselves, as men, have sometimes given expression, a tribute of
  praise will be offered by all to the justice and Providence of God. My
  feet, says the Prophet, were almost moved, my steps had well nigh
  slipped, because I had a zeal on occasion of the wicked, seeing the
  prosperity of sinners; and a little after: Behold! these are sinners
  and yet abounding in the world, they have obtained riches; and I said,
  Then have I in vain justified my heart, and washed my hands among the
  innocent; and I have been scourged all the day, and my chastisement
  hath been in the morning. This has been the frequent complaint of
  many, and a general judgment is therefore necessary, lest perhaps men
  may be tempted to say that God walketh about the poles of heaven, and
  regards not the earth.


What is the basis for the Apostles devoting themselves to prayer for nine days in Acts 1:14? We know that in Acts the Apostles prayed in the upper room consecutively until the Holy Spirit descended on them. Oftentimes I heard that this was calculated to be for nine days. How did people reach this number?

The existing answers give much valuable and interesting information. This is just to indicate, as asked, how the number of days is actually calculated.

Leviticus 23 16 gives the date of the Jewish Festival of Pentecost as occurring fifty days after the Passover Sabbath. On the basis that the Jewish Passover began on the evening of Good Friday then Pentecost was the Sunday 7 weeks after Easter Day,

This question on the Judaism stack exchange has more about this.

Acts 1 verse 3 tells us that the risen Jesus was seen by His apostles for a period of forty days. Beginning on Easter Sunday, as the first day, we get that the fortieth day was a Thursday, which the Church celebrates as Ascension Day. (In practice it is often celebrated on the following Sunday for convenience.)

Acts 2 verse 1 tells us that the Holy Spirit came on the Day of Pentecost, that is on the Sunday ten days after the Ascension of Christ. This is why Whit Sunday, or  Christian Pentecost, is always exactly 7 weeks after Easter Day.

This leaves the intervening days between Ascension Day and Whit Sunday on which the apostles prayed, as the Friday and Saturday after the Ascension and the whole of the following week, that is nine days in all.


What is the origin of the idea that Miriam, sister of Moses, was a virgin? Church father Chromatius, writing around the turn of the 4th century, appeals to an interesting OT example to defend the perpetual virginity of Mary:

  Remember that Miriam the prophetess of the Old Testament (the sister of Moses and Aaron) remained a virgin unsullied by man, having beheld the light of heavenly signs after the plagues of Egypt and the parting of the Red Sea and the Lord's glory going in advance and seen in a pillar of fire and clouds.  It is not plausible therefore that the Mary of the Gospel, a virgin bearing God, who beheld God's glory not in a cloud but was worthy of carrying him in her virginal womb, had relations with a man. (source)

I reviewed the Wikipedia article on Miriam, and it seems to indicate that Chromatius's understanding is contrary to that of Judaism – the article mentions the Midrash as saying that Miriam had a spouse.  Furthermore, Chromatius seems to make much of Miriam's status as a "prophetess," yet many prophets had spouses (e.g., Moses, Isaiah, Hosea)

So I wonder – what is the origin of this tradition, that Miriam was a virgin?  Did it develop in association with the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary, or was Chromatius relying on an older tradition?

About the time of Ambrose, Gregory of Nyssa wrote the following in which he speculates about her virginity.

  Thus, Miriam’s timbrel being a dead thing, and virginity being a deadening of the bodily passions, it is perhaps not very far removed from the bounds of probability that Miriam was a virgin. However, we can but guess and surmise, we cannot clearly prove, that this was so, and that Miriam the prophetess led a dance of virgins, even though many of the learned have affirmed distinctly that she was unmarried, from the fact that the history makes no mention either of her marriage or of her being a mother; and surely she would have been named and known, not as “the sister of Aaron1477,” but from her husband, if she had had one; since the head of the woman is not the brother but the husband.
  Gregory of Nyssa

His reference to "many of the learned" and who they are may only be speculated, but clearly by his time, there was teaching that Miriam was a virgin that the tad bit later Chromatius had picked up.


How can Heaven exist if we know that people in Hell will suffer? Suppose for the following scenario that both the Christian Heaven and Hell exist.

My mother is a good Christian and loves me dearly.

I am an atheist, and will therefore go to hell upon death. [If you don't agree that I will go to hell for being an atheist, simply consider me a sinner who will go to hell.]

When my mother dies she will go to Heaven.

How can my mother possibly experience eternal happiness with the knowledge that her beloved son is being tortured for eternity?

Note: I do not know the originator of this argument. I know that Matt Dilahunty has made it before, though do not know if he came up with it. I ask because I think it poses a valid inconsistency and I would to hear the Christian response.

Short answer: We don't know for sure.  The rest of this answer explores various "Christian answers", but the conclusion is "we don't know for sure".

This is a question that I struggled with when I was an atheist, and it's a question that Christians have grappled with and that has never been answered in a way that would have been intellectually satisfying to me as an atheist.  There are several attempts to give answers, some okay, some blatantly out of line with what we do know of Heaven.

Some have theorized that we will not know of the suffering of the lost.  That God may remove that knowledge from us.  This would be inconsistent with the nature of God, and also 1 Corinthians 13:12, which teaches us that we will have increased knowledge, not decreased.
Some have theorized that Heaven is so wonderful that the thought of our loved ones will seem insignificant.  That hardly fits with the Christian message of Agape (selfless) love being the ultimate expression and reflection of God.

Christianity.ca adds this:

  A second possibility boldly suggests that this awareness will be a
  cause for joy and praise rather than pain. Shocking though it may
  sound, this position has been defended by many theologians including
  Thomas Aquinas, Jonathan Edwards and, more recently, J. I. Packer. As
  Edwards put it, the redeemed “will not be sorry for the damned; it
  will cause no uneasiness or dissatisfaction to them; but on the
  contrary, when they have this sight, it will excite them to joyful
  praises.”

  Grisly though this may sound, it has some impressive scriptural
  support. The imprecatory psalms (such as Psalm 139:21-22) seem to
  anticipate with great relish the demise of the wicked. And one might
  reasonably infer that the saints who plead for their blood to be
  avenged (see Revelation 6:10) will extract satisfaction once this
  judgment on “the inhabitants of the earth” is underway.

I don't buy that interpretation, either.

Alwaysbeready.com says this:

  The thought of being apart from your friends and family who do not
  know the Lord is a heart wrenching thought. But God assures us in His
  Word that in Heaven our joy will be absolutely full.

  Psalm 16:11 says, “In Thy presence is fullness of joy; in Thy right
  hand there are pleasures forevermore.”

  All who go to Heaven will experience “fullness of joy.”

  Revelation 21:4 tells us, "He [God] shall wipe away every tear from
  their eyes; and there shall no longer be any death; there shall no
  longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have
  passed away."

  Quoting C. S. Lewis again, "If you are concerned about your loved
  one's that won't be in Heaven, the most irrational thing you could do
  if you are truly concerned about those on the outside is to remain
  outside yourself."

  The best thing you could ever do is to make sure you’re going to
  Heaven and then do all that you can to help wake up your loved ones!

Finally, this nugget from Ray Comfort is, perhaps, both the least intellectual, but closest to my belief:

  "How can people be happy in Heaven, knowing that their unsaved loved ones are suffering in Hell?" Those who ask question such as these
  fall into the category of those who asked Jesus a similar question.
  They said that a certain woman had seven consecutive husbands, whose
  wife will she therefore be in Heaven (Mark 12:23)? Jesus answered them
  by saying that they neither knew the Scriptures nor the power of God.
  The unregenerate mind has no concept of God's mind or His infinite
  power. If God can speak the sun into existence; if He can see every
  thought of every human heart at the same time; if He can create the
  human eye with its 137,000,000 light-sensitive cells, then He can
  handle the minor details of our eternal salvation.

As for me, personally, my answer would be close to what Mr. Comfort stated.  Quite frankly, I don't know for sure.. And neither does anyone else.

But what I do know is that for the longest time, I thought that God was a lie.  I thought that Jesus was an invisible friend for weak-minded fools that were too weak to face life without some invisible friend helping them along.  I thought that the Bible was a bunch of hooey, made up by a bunch of creeps that wanted to manipulate people for their own gain.

And I was wrong.  God has proved Himself to me in ways that I would have never imagined.  He has earned my trust.  His word is trustworthy, and if His word says we'll be happy in Heaven, even with the knowledge of our loved ones suffering, I trust Him.  I trust His word.

I know that the above is not going to be satisfying on any level to an atheist.  I realize what it sounds like, but for some questions, there are no easy answers.  Sometimes the only correct answer is "we just don't know for sure".  But to make it a "Christian answer" we have to allow for that component of faith that says that even if we don't know, we trust in God.


According to Catholicism, is it a sin to participate in gambling such as State Lottery? Here I would like to ask the Catholic viewpoint on gambling.

For example, let's say if I were a Catholic single-parent mother of meager means who hoped to win in a lottery. Would participating in State Lottery amount to sinning?

I realize that there may not be any official sources that discuss this particular scenario, so to put it in another way, is gambling always a sin according to Catholicism?

The second question is, would gambling doom the individual to an eternity in hell?

Is gambling always a sin according to Catholicism?

The short answer is no.

  In its moral aspect, although gambling usually has a bad meaning, yet we may apply to it what was said about betting. On certain conditions, and apart from excess or scandal, it is not sinful to stake money on the issue of a game of chance any more than it is sinful to insure one's property against risk, or deal in futures on the produce market. -  Catholic Encyclopedia

There is at least one patron saints of gambling: St. Cajetan.

  St. Cajetan (known as St. Cayetano in Spanish-speaking countries) is the Patron Saint of Gamblers. Cajetan, born in 1480, was a lawyer and the son of a wealthy family. Driven by a desire to reform the Church, he traveled to Rome, became a priest, and founded a religious order. He used his family fortune to create hospitals that served both the physical and moral needs of the poor. He also established pawn shops and credit unions to provide loans to the poor.

  Cajetan's connection to gambling is obscure. Popular lore says the people would ask him for a favor, and bet him a rosary that he couldn't come through. Since he always came through, he was able to get people to pray more. Based on what I know of saints, this feels like a pious retrofitting of a reason to a patronage, and it just doesn't sound likely.

  It's more probable that his loans helped people get out from under the predatory interest rates of loan sharks, and many of the these loans were the result of gambling debts. Then, as now, a compulsive gambler could destroy his family, so it seems more likely that Cajetan probably helped problem gamblers get back on the right path both financially and morally. - Who Is The Patron Saint of Gaming?


How does calling someone an "idiot" make one bound for Gehenna? How does calling someone an "idiot" make one bound for Gehenna? I'm sure there is something of translation, meaning, or ancient culture to be considered here.

  ...and whoever says, You cursed fool! [You empty-headed idiot!] shall
  be liable to and unable to escape the hell (Gehenna) of fire.

  Matthew 5:22 (Amplified Bible)

Is this a point lost in translation?
What point was Jesus making when he said this?

It's not so much something lost in translation, though there may be some cultural factors coming into play. Jews considered the Words of the ten commandments to be minimum requirements, and beginning with Matthew 5:21, Jesus expounds on some the commandments pertaining to the relationship to other other people. The essence of the teaching in Matthew 5:21 ff is that the actual commandment not to murder is insufficient. Not only is murdering another a violation of the commandment, but even to insult another person violates the spirit of it. He then similarly expounds on others of the commandments, for example, not only is it a sin to commit adultery, but it is a sin to think about committing adultery. After making similar comments on other commandments, Jesus summarizes his points in Matthew 5:48--"You, therefore, must be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect." (RSV)

To go back to the original question, merely not committing murder is imperfect, as it is the minimum required. Not insulting another person, as in calling them a fool, is perfection.


Mark’s father’s name Who was Mark's (or John Mark's) father in the Gospel and what was his name.  His mother’s name was Mary. Where can I find the name of Mark’s father mentioned in the bible, if at all?

John Mark's surname is actually Marcus, I Peter 5:13, a Roman name, so presumably his father was a Roman. There may have been implications in that, since Mary is an Hebrew name and there is a question of why Mary, presumably a Jewess, would marry a Roman and not a Jew.

The name of John Mark's father is not recorded in scripture, only his mother.

Peter speaks of John Mark in a fatherly way, I Peter 5:13 again, and one wonders if the Roman father was separated from the family and that Peter was a surrogate father to John Mark.

Paul tells us that John Mark's mother, Mary, was the sister of Barnabus, Colossians 4:10, and of course we know that Barnabus had an altercation, Acts 15:38, with Paul regarding John Mark going back to Jerusalem, Acts 13:13, during the first missionary journey of Paul leading Paul not to want him on the next journey and the parting of the ways taking place between Paul and Barnabus.

But Luke says, Acts 11:24, that Barnabus was a good man and full of the Holy Spirit. So it is a lesson that even good men may part company, one from another.

In the end, Paul commends Mark requesting Timothy, II Timothy 4:11, to bring him as he was 'profitable for the ministry' and, of course, he subsequently wrote a book received into the canon of scripture.

Perhaps Mark is the young man which he alone mentions who fled away unclothed when Jesus was arrested, the young man leaving his cloak in the hands of his would-be captors, Mark 14:52.

Then again, Mark is the only one to mention, Mark 16:5, a young man, clothed in white in the empty sepulchre after Jesus' resurrection so there is an allusion there to recovery and service in the context of both the fleeing young man and Mark turning back from the work of evangelism.

And maybe there is further cause for Mark being chosen to write the gospel account if it is the case that his mother had backslidden in taking a Roman as a husband. Here again, perhaps there is a message of recovery in Christ from every failure.

The only other name mentioned in scripture in connection with the household of Mary and her son John Marcus is Rhoda, Acts 12, the young girl who did not, at first, let Peter in when the angel released him from prison.

It is interesting, also, to note that the prayer was being made by a gathered company for Peter in prison and it was the household of Mary and her son John Mark wherein the prayer meeting was taking place.


What is omitted from the current Western, Catholic Psalter? I know that there are at least two Pslams omitted from the current Breviary, and I know that some pieces of others are missing (Psalm 136, for example, is missing the verse about dashing baby's skulls against rocks). I can't seem to find a reference to which Psalms and which verses are omitted.

The following is a list of omitted verses and Chapters from the four week plaster, currently in use. It follows modern numbering. Not Septuagint numbering.

Psalms Omitted Completely:

Psalm 58
Psalm 83
Psalm 109

Verses Omitted from Particular Psalms:

Psalm 5: 11
Psalm 21: 9-13
Psalm 28: 4-5
Psalm 31: 18-19
Psalm 40: 15-16
Psalm 54: 7
Psalm 55: 16
Psalm 56: 8
Psalm 69: 23-29
Psalm 72: 20
Psalm 79: 6-7,12
Psalm 110: 6
Psalm 137: 7-9
Psalm 139: 19-22
Psalm 140: 10-12
Psalm 141: 10
Psalm 143: 12

Source: Psalms and Verses Omitted from the Four-Week Psalter  Compiled by Fr. Felix Just, S.J., Ph.D.


What defined a "clean" animal prior to the flood when mankind did not eat meat? In Genesis 7, God tells Noah to take with him 7 pairs of clean animals in contrast to only one pair of all other animals.  Additionally, 7 pairs of birds were to be taken as well.

  Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and his mate, and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and his mate, 3 and seven pairs of the birds of the heavens also, male and female, to keep their offspring alive on the face of all the earth.  Genesis 7:2-3

However, prior to the flood, it seems that mankind was not allowed to eat meat, as God specifically allows for it after the flood.  Furthermore, the distinction between clean animals and unclean animals for consumption was not revealed until the time of Moses.

  Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant.  Genesis 9:3

I guess it is possible that people did, in fact, eat meat prior to the flood, but did so against God's decree.  However, not many of them were following God's decrees.

So, is there any indication of what a clean animal would have been right before the flood that distinguished them from other animals?

There's no literal indication. Apparently (correct me if I'm wrong on this), the humans knew which animals were pure and which weren't even before of the flood. You can observe this when God tells Noah to take the animals into the ark:

  2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and
  his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his
  female. Gen 7:2

In the following verses Noah doesn't question this order, neither asks God for which animals were pure or not. So, this is an indicator that humans knew some of Moses' Laws (probably all). About this, some people believe that God engraved the Moses' Laws onto the hearts of the humans, but this is just a theory.

About the meat: The biblical text doesn't say God forbid to eat meat before the flood explicitly, according to Gen 1:29-30 (KJV) he gave like herbs and seeds for the human to eat:

  29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed,
  which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which
  is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
  30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and
  to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I
  have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

He didn't forbid it, neither allowed it. But later, after the flood, He gave the humans authority to eat animals' meat.

Cheers


What was meaning of `Talent' as used by Jesus in His parable? At Matthew 25:14 we read:

  For it is as if a man, going on a journey, summoned his slaves and entrusted his property to them; to one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away. The one who had received the five talents went off at once and traded with them, and made five more talents.

References to the Old Testament ( Exodus 25:39, Exodus 38:27, 2 Samuel 12:30 , 1 King 16:24 etc..) suggest that Talent was used as a measurement of either gold or silver . Some researchers suggest that the phraseology "..to each according to his ability.." used by Jesus implies that Talent was the multiplying factor of the remuneration, per month, of the  worker  in question.

My question therefore, is: What do the Catholic Church's interpretations say on the exact connotation of the term Talent  used by Jesus ?

There is no "Catholic interpretation", per se.  A talent was simply a unit of measure, and by extension, value.

Relevant to the verse you quoted:

  The heavy common talent, used in New Testament times, was 58.9 kilograms (130 lb).[5]

So a talent (of Gold) would be worth roughly (at today's prices rate--20 Nov 2017) US $2,456,300.

Also from the footnotes of the NIV:

  a talent was worth about 20 years of a day laborer’s wage.


Does Luke 13:24 give us a more vivid picture of how many people will be saved? I mean how many times have we said 'let me see' or 'let me try'. Or how many times have we felt like - I'm trying to be a Christian.  Seems like trying is not good enough according to Luke 13:24:

  Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to.

For example, as a Christian, I've been trying to give at least my tithe, but have always failed because I hold back. So if I don't change NOW, I'm not gonna make it. Right or Wrong. Is there anywhere else in the Bible that reads trying is not good enough?

There are about 7 billion people on earth. Taking Luke 13:24 in mind, is a FEW like 7000 people.

Any time you hear anything along the lines of "I'm trying to be a Christian", a giant red flag should immediately go up in your mind. Whoever said that is either playing fast and loose with words or they have completely missed the point.

Being a Christian is a binary state (our position as either lost or saved in the eyes of God) that is not determined by anything we could ever do but on something somebody else did in our stead. This is so fundamental to Christianity that our way of speaking should never include a suggestion that we could ever do anything to change that status.

  1 Corinthians 4:7 (ESV)
  For who sees anything different in you? What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it?

Of course there are things we do in response to having had our status changed, but the way we talk about these things should clearly reflect their nature.

  Ephesians 4:1 (ESV)
  I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called,

By the same token I think your question is symptomatic of a similar misunderstanding. Never is "trying hard" connected to "entering the Kingdom of God". In fact from beginning to end you will find a long saga about the God who does all of the doing to save his people.

The question you should be asking yourself in light of what you know about your life is more along the lines of "are my current desires and resulting actions evidence that I have been fundamentally changed and do I understand this change to be God's handiwork as effected by Christ who has adopted me?"

Answer that question and your other one will become clear.


Are we living with Angels in flesh? Are we living with angels in flesh? I've heard of the spiritual element of angels through the Bible and other mediums, but the following verse introduces them in flesh.

  "Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers, for by doing some
  people have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it." - Hebrews 13:2 (NIV)

Is this verse simply metaphoric or is there a deeper significance?

Angelic apparitions could be either metaphoric or real depending on who you ask.

"Throughout Scripture, we see numerous instances in which angels were an integral part of God’s plan. One verse alludes to the possibility of angels walking among us today: “Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers, for by so doing some people have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it” (Hebrews 13:2). The obvious reference is to Abraham, whose angelic visitors appeared to him as mere men (Genesis 18). This verse may or may not confirm that angels are indeed walking among us unawares; “have shown” is past tense, so present-day encounters are not explicitly mentioned.

There are dozens of scriptural examples of angelic encounters, so we know that God can and does use angels to accomplish certain things. What we don’t know for sure is how often angels allow themselves to be seen by people. Here are the basics about angels from the Bible: angels can instruct people (Genesis 16:9), help people (Daniel 6:22), deliver messages to people (Luke 1:35), appear in visions and dreams (Daniel 10:13), protect people (Exodus 23:20), and help carry out God’s plans.

We know that God created angels, and He uses angels in His plan. Angels have a sense of individuality, as some have names (such as Gabriel and Michael) and all have different responsibilities within the angelic hierarchy."- Are there Angels among us?

Let us not forget that the Angel Gabriel appeared to Mary at the Annunciation.

Many Catholics believe that an angel appeared to the three children of Fatima in 1916.

It is also said that St. Frances of Rome (1384-1440) was guided by an Archangel that only she could see.


According to the Bible, how should Christians meditate? In the recent years the word "meditation" has been used widely, including  in non-religious contexts. Should we, Christians meditate? If yes, what should we do while meditating? S

What does the Bible say about meditation?  Please answer with specific verses that state the right way to mediate?

Please excuse me for a large answer, in my opinion this question is really hard to answer in several words.

Althought there are many references to "meditation" in Bible, however, word "meditation" should be used very carefully here, to be not confused with meditation practice in eastern religions, such as Buddhism or Hinduism.

We Christians should listen to the Church, the only authority of faith on the Earth. And both Catholic and Orthodox Church warns about mixing prayer with any New Age practicies.

Catholic Church about meditation

Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on some aspects of Christian meditation

  "This document of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
  stresses the differences between Christian and eastern meditative
  approaches. It warns of the dangers of attempting to mix Christian
  meditation with eastern approaches since that could be both confusing
  and misleading, and may result in the loss of the essential
  Christocentric nature of Christian meditation.

  The letter warns that "euphoric states" obtained through Eastern
  meditation should not be confused with prayer or assumed to be signs
  of the presence of God, a state that should always result in loving
  service to others. Without these truths, the letter said, meditation,
  which should be a flight from the self, can degenerate into a form of
  self-absorption. The letter warns against concentration on the self,
  rather than on Christ, and states that:

  Christian prayer, ..., the communion of redeemed creatures with the
  intimate life of the Persons of the Trinity, based on Baptism and the
  Eucharist, source and summit of the life of the Church, implies an
  attitude of conversion, a flight from "self" to the "You" of God. Thus
  Christian prayer is at the same time always authentically personal and
  communitarian. It flees from impersonal techniques or from
  concentrating on oneself, which can create a kind of rut.

  The letter also warns that concentration on the physical aspects of
  meditation "can degenerate into a cult of the body" and that equating
  bodily states with mysticism "could also lead to psychic disturbance
  and, at times, to moral deviations."

A Christian reflection on the New Age, a six year study by the Roman Catholic Church on the New Age movement

  The document states that for Christians, the spiritual life is a
  relationship with God. It criticizes Eastern meditation and states
  that all meditation techniques need to be purged of presumption and
  pretentiousness. It states that Christian prayer is not an exercise in
  self-contemplation, stillness and self-emptying, but a dialogue of
  love, one which "implies an attitude of conversion, a flight from
  'self' to the 'you' of God".

Orthodox Church about meditation

Easter meditation from the point of Orthodoxy and Science

  The pursuit of imaginary grace of peace leads to irreparable spiritual
  losses: "painlessness of a heart dazzles the mind" (St. John of the
  Ladder, The ladder of divine ascent 7:13). We can find a confirmation
  of this idea in the words of St. Peter of Damascus: "Lowliness of mind
  is a product of intellect, and intellect is a product of temptations".
  Optina elder Hieroschemamonk Makarios said that if we want to be
  glorified with the Lord, then we must suffer with Him, we must suffer
  with everything that He wills send to us.

Orthodoxy and the Faith of Future, monk-priest Seraphim Exposes that Transcendental meditation, introduced in USA by Maharishi, contains secret initiation as a pagan Guru worshipping cult

Christian meditation

A great article on that point in Wikipedia lists several practical approaches:

Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola

  Within the Exercises, daily instructions include various meditations
  and contemplations on the nature of the world, of human psychology as
  Ignatius understood it, and of man's relationship to God through Jesus
  Christ. The Exercises is divided into "four weeks" of varying lengths
  with four major themes: sin, the life of Jesus, the Passion of Jesus
  and the Resurrection of Jesus. During each day of the Exercises, a
  typical retreatant prays with a particular exercise, as assigned by
  the director, reviews each prayer, and, following four or five periods
  of prayer, reports back to the spiritual director of the retreat who
  helps them to understand what these experiences of prayer might mean
  to the retreatant. The goal of the Exercises is to reflect upon their
  experiences and to understand how these same experiences might apply
  to the retreatant's life.

Camino de Perfección (The Way of Perfection) of St. Teresa of Avila

  Her starting point was the practice of "recollection", i.e. keeping
  the senses and the intellect in check and not allowing them to stray.
  In her meditations, one generally restricts attention to a single
  subject, principally the love of God. In The Way of Perfection she
  wrote: "It is called recollection because the soul collects together
  all the faculties and enters within itself to be with God". She would
  use devices such as short readings, a scene of natural beauty or a
  religious statue or picture to remind her to keep her focus. She wrote
  that in due course, the mind naturally learns to maintain focus on God
  almost effortlessly. St. Theresa viewed Christian meditation as the
  first of four steps in achieving "union with God", and used the
  analogy of watering the garden. She compared basic meditation to
  watering a garden with a bucket, Recollection to the water wheel,
  Quiet (contemplation) to a spring of water and Union to drenching
  rain.

St. Francis de Sales

  In the preparation part, one places oneself in the presence of God
  and asks the Holy Spirit to direct the prayer, as in the Epistle to
  the Romans[8:26]: "The Spirit helps us in our weakness, for we do not
  know what to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with
  sighs too deep for words."  In the consideration part, one focuses
  on a specific topic, e.g. a passage from the Bible.  In the
  affections and resolutions part, one focuses on feelings and makes a
  resolution or decision. For instance, when meditating on the Parable
  of the Good Samaritan one may decide to visit someone sick and be kind
  to them.  In the conclusion part, one gives thanks and praise to God
  for the considerations and asks for the grace to stand by the
  resolution.

20th century

  The 20th century has also witnessed a new focus on Biblical
  meditation. These may be defined as: "the devotional practice of
  pondering the words of a verse or verses of Scripture with a receptive
  heart."
  Modern Biblical meditations may be designed to relate and connect the
  Biblical message to the modern world.
  Such Biblical meditations may correspond to specific seasons such as
  Lent with the meditation topic selected to interact with two or three
  readings of the Bible during weekdays or Sundays of Lent.
  The meditation sequence may begin by a summary of the Bible reading,
  then suggest specific ideas for meditation, then conclude with an
  appropriat prayer.
  Such meditations may also be designed not just for "strong seasons"
  such as Lent or Easter, but also for Ordinary Time.
  In the 20th century methods of Christian meditations have been taught
  using relatively new devotions such as the Divine Mercy devotion.


Were Jesus’ hands tied on the way to Calvary? Traditions say that Jesus fell three times under the weight of the cross, out of which  two instances took place after Simon of Cyrene had been  entrusted to help Him carry the cross. One wonders whether Jesus had been hand-cuffed on the way to Calvary , on account of which He was not able to balance the weight of the cross over His shoulder. My question therefore is: Do the teachings of Catholic Church indicate that Jesus was  hand-cuffed on the way to Calvary ?

Was Jesus tied to the patibulum on the way to Calvary?

It is quite possible that Christ was tied to the patibulum or crossbar of his Cross, but the Catholic Church has no official stance on this subject. The Church has no traditions of such things being done to Jesus during his Passion.

Some might say that victims to be crucified were so weak after their scourging that there would be no reason to tie the condemned to their patibulums.

Some Catholic sources claim that yes victims were indeed tied to their crossbar, but the Church has no official pronouncements on it.

  What was a typical crucifixion like?

  After the flogging, the victim would carry his own cross bar (called a patibulum) from the flogging area inside the city to the crucifixion area outside of the city walls. The crucifixion area was always outside the city, because the process was horrible and disturbing to citizens.

  The upright part of the cross (the stipe) was permanently mounted in the crucifixion area. The part that the victim carried was the cross bar, weighing in at 75 to 125 pounds. The cross bar would be balanced on the victims shoulders, and their arms would be tied to the crossbar. In this position, if the victim tripped or fell, they could not use their arms to break their fall, and they would likely fall face first into the ground.

  The victim was escorted by a Roman guard (probably a centurion and several soldiers), who were responsible for guarding the victim until his death. One of the soldiers would display a sign with the crime written on it.


To understand the "The Bible is the Word of God" According to the Trinity.

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity (from Latin trinitas "triad", from trinus "threefold")1 defines God as three consubstantial persons,2 expressions, or hypostases:[3] the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit; "one God in three persons". The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature".[4] In this context, a "nature" is what one is, while a "person" is who one is.[5][6][7]

According to this central mystery of most Christian faiths,[8] there is only one God in three persons: while distinct from one another in their relations of origin (as the Fourth Lateran Council declared, "it is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds") and in their relations with one another, they are stated to be one in all else, co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial, and "each is God, whole and entire".[9]

Here is the question. In the article by John Frame, the Bible is the Word of God.

I believe that the God exists in three persons. But by the definition of John Frame, could we conclude that the God exists four persons, Father, Son, Spirit and the last one "Bible".

Am I misunderstanding John Frame's idea? Please read his paper first.

It's important to understand that the Bible is a man made thing--it's the name for a collection of 66 writings created throughout history that are recognized as the inspired word of God.

John Frame refers to the Bible as the Word of God, but what he really means is that the words contained within the Bible are the inspired words of God.

So the re-frame your question, could we say that God exists as the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and the Word? That would be a misunderstanding as well:

  John 1:1,2,14 ESV In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God ... And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Those that believe in the Trinitarian nature of God believe that Jesus, the son, is also the Word. So saying that the Trinity is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is true. And saying that the Trinity is the Father, the Word, and Holy Spirit is also true.


Why eat when there was no death? In Genesis, God tells Adam and Eve not to eat of a certain tree, but they can eat from any other tree. The bible also apparently says that before sin there was no death.

So... Why the need to eat? If you are immortal, what purpose would eating have?

There are really only two opinions on this and they stem from differing definitions of the word immortal which often conflates or coincides with opinions on the nature of the afterlife.

Traditionally, immortal meant that you simply did not age, and therefore would not die from old age. This is often extended to illness as well. Your body still had requirements, such and food, water, and rest. Naturally, then, there was fruit in the garden for Adam to eat. Proponents of this view often point out that the Tree of Life was in the Garden too. They suggest that they Tree was necessary for immortality and was eaten regularly. This leave the question of harm to your body. Yes, that would be possible under this view.

In much of Christianity, immortal has come to mean that the person cannot die by any cause. The doctrines that dictate there is an immortal soul that is separate from the body use the word immortal in this sense. The pre-fall existence is often conflated with this, despite it being a significantly different thing. So they say the body had no requirements to sustain itself. Proponents of this view would likely point out that eating is a pleasurable exercise, hence, there was fruit in the Garden.

Ancient Greek religion originally tended more toward the first definition, but moved toward the second later. It had a significant impact on Christianity while the second definition was prominent. More precisely, it had an impact on the Jews of that time.


Origin of quote: "If you wish to speak or hear about God, renounce your own body..." I've been reading Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky and encountered this quote attributed to St. Basil the Great:

  If you wish to speak or hear about God, renounce your own body,
  renounce your bodily senses, pass over the seasons of the year, their
  orderly arrangements, the adornments of the earth; stand above the
  ether, traverse the stars, their splendor, grandeur, the profit which
  they provide for the whole world, their good order, brightness,
  arrangement, movement, and the bond or distance between them. Having
  passed through all this in your mind, go about heaven and, standing
  above it, with your thought alone, observe the beauties which are
  there: the armies of angels, which are above the heavens, the chiefs
  of the archangels, the glory of the Dominions, the presiding of the
  Thrones, the Powers, Principalities, Authorities. Having gone past all
  this and left below the whole of creation in your thoughts, raising
  your mind beyond the boundaries of it, present to your mind the
  essence of God, unmoving, unchanging, unalterable, dispassionate,
  simple, incomplex, indivisible, unapproachable light, unutterable
  power, infinite magnitude, resplendent glory, most desired goodness,
  immeasurable beauty that powerfully strikes the wounded soul, but
  cannot worthily be depicted in words.

Does anyone know where it came from?

It appears that this quote is from a Homily by St. Basil titled On Faith, specifically Fide 1, which can be found in the larger work On Christian Doctrine and Practice.

  De fide, Mark DelCogliano writes, “is one of the classic expressions of [Basil’s] Trinitarian doctrine” (On Christian Doctrine and Practice, p. 227).


What is meant by "God is Omnipotent"? I'm questioning my own understanding of the term "Omnipotence" in response so a comment on one of my answers.

In the comment, the poster included a definition of Omnipotence taken from the Wikipeda article on Omnipotence. (Emphasis mine)

  A deity is able to do absolutely anything, even the logically impossible, i.e., pure agency.

This means that God, if He is omnipotent could:

Create a square circle
Create a triangle with four sides
The ever-so-famous create a rock big enough He can't lift it.

I have personally never understood His omnipotence to mean that He could do logically impossible things as shown above.  Instead, I tend to agree with C.S. Lewis, in his statement:

  His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible,
  not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to
  him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to his power. If you choose to
  say 'God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold
  free will from it,' you have not succeeded in saying anything about
  God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning
  simply because we prefix to them the two other words 'God can.'... It
  is no more possible for God than for the weakest of his creatures to
  carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because his
  power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even
  when we talk it about God.

As far as I know, and in the Christian circles I'm familiar with, the position that I hold, which C.S. Lewis so eloquently states is the commonly held understanding of the word "Omnipotence", but I run into people here and there that stick to the idea that God can do the logically impossible.

So rather than sticking to my assumption, I'm asking the community:

Are there any traditions/denominations that hold to the "God can do anything, even the logically impossible" definition of Omnipotence?

Short Answer: When we say "God is omnipotent" we mean "He has the power to do whatever He pleases".  There are other definitions, such as "capable of doing anything man can think up", but by such definitions He would not be considered "omnipotent".

Semantics

As indicated in the wikipedia post you linked, there are many definitions for the word omnipotent.  As with many of the heavily debated topics in Christianity today, the controversy arises when we begin to mix two different definitions during a debate.  (Other examples: "evolution", "knowledge", "free-will", "love", "life", "evil", and so on.)  The word omnipotent literally translates as "all-powerful", but as usual, the meaning of the word is determined by the person using it, and is clarified by the context of their usage.

So here's the story behind this controversy: Christian theologians have studied the Bible and noticed some things about God (such as His great power), and have summarized those things using simple terms (such as omnipotence).  For a Christian, the word omnipotent is simply a term used to refer to the teachings of Scripture about God's great power - nothing more, nothing less.  Heathens (in their blindness and ignorance) have noticed Christians attributing "omnipotence" to God, have used a different definition of the word which is based on a misunderstanding of the Christian usage, and have then used this heathen definition to attack and accuse Christians.  Modern Christians (in their laziness) often accept the heathen definitions, neglect to study the topic in Scripture, but have faith that God must be omnipotent, and then try to reconcile their view of God with the heathen definition.

The solution to all of this confusion is for Christians to study the Scriptures and understand what was originally meant by the term omnipotence in Christian theology, and stop trying to train "unreasoning animals" to understand things which are impossible for them to understand, and which they are unwilling to accept.  With that said, let's take a quick look at the definition commonly used by heathens.

The Heathen Definition

Heathens often use the word omnipotent to mean "capable of doing anything."  Modern (naturalistic) heathens have a field day in debates using this definition, because it opens up all sorts of nonsensical attacks, such as "can God create a rock so big He cannot move it?", which is essentially the same as asking, "does God have the power to create a situation in which He is powerless?", or even more plainly, "does God have the power to not be God?"  As C. S. Lewis pointed out, this is nothing more than shrewd, nonsensical wordplay.

A Scriptural Definition

Let's look at what the Bible says and see what sort of picture is actually painted in Scripture.

  “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “ who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” -Revelation 1:8

Passages such as this one teach us that God is "almighty".  It is most accurate to think of this word as meaning "God has unlimited might, which enables Him to do anything He wants to do", rather than interpreting this to mean "it is possible for God to do anything we can think up."  The following passage describes this more clearly:

  our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases. -Psalm 115:3

In other words, once God desires to do something, He has the power to do it, and He does it.  This does not mean that God has the capacity to do whatever we can think up.  It means God has the power to do whatever He wants to do.  Of course "what He wants to do" is going to be consistent with His nature.  As we learn more about the nature of God, we can better understand what sorts of things He would do, and can better understand how He works, how we should pray, etc.  For example, God is love, God is good, God is just, and so on.

The Difference

Thus, by the Christian definition, there are things God cannot do, because He cannot contradict His nature.  For example, He is faithful, so He cannot be faithless;

  If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself. -2 Timothy 2:13

Another example is that since God is truth, He cannot lie:

  God, who cannot lie, promised... -Titus 1:2

So by the Christian definition, God's actions are limited by His nature, while the heathen definition requires that God be capable of anything -- even things contrary to His "nature."

How to debate with heathens

Heathen: "Christians say God is omnipotent, but that's impossible.  Let me illustrate with a question: Can God create a rock so big He cannot move it?  If you say yes then He can't be omnipotent because He can't move it, and if you say no then He can't be omnipotent because He can't make a rock that big."

Christian: "That question doesn't really make sense.  The rock you described is a nonsensical object.  The size of a rock doesn't change God's ability to move it.  That's like asking if God can make a ball so green that He can't roll it; the color of a ball doesn't impact God's ability to roll it anymore than the size of a rock impacts God's ability to move it."

Heathen: "My point is, if God is omnipotent then He should have the power to do anything, but does He have the power to make a contradiction?  Can He create a square circle?  Does He have the power to limit His power?"

Christian: "You are confused about the meaning of the word omnipotent when it is used by Christians.  We use that word to refer to God's ability to do whatever He wants to do.  Your example is equivalent to asking if God has the power to not be God.  Not only is that nonsensical, but it would require God to act contrary to His nature, which He cannot do."

Heathen: "So God isn't really omnipotent?"

Christian: "God is almighty and does whatever He pleases.  There are things He cannot do, such as lie, so if your definition of "omnipotent" includes the capacity and ability to do anything man can think up, then He would not be "omnipotent" according to your definition."

Heathen: "So God isn't really omnipotent.  In that case He can't be God."

Christian: "You are using heathen definitions and heathen criteria for classifying a being as 'God' to show that it is impossible for the Christian God to exist.  Not only is this arrogant and insane (since the human brain is far too small to draw such a conclusion), but your method presupposes your conclusion that there is no God.  If God were real, He would be the only one qualified to explain His attributes and nature, and it would be our job to learn from Him.  Christians believe He has done this in Scripture.  If you wanted to see if the Christian view were internally consistent, you would have to look at Scripture, and according to Scripture, you would need to know Him in order to understand His ways.  So if you are interested in knowing the truth, start by seeking God in prayer and reading Scripture.  Once He begins to open up your eyes to the truth, these things will begin to make more sense to you.  If you are not interested in knowing the truth, feel free to continue scoffing at God, but these arguments only 'disprove the possibility of God's existence' from a perspective which presupposes His non-existence.  This is what the Bible refers to when it says 'the wisdom of this world is foolish to God'."


Why does God command the Israelites not to boil a goat in its mother's milk? Some of the laws I can directly see why they were given, however I do not understand the last part of the verse below regarding not boiling a kid in its mothers milk.

  Deuteronomy 14:21 NIV Do not eat anything you find already dead. You
  may give it to an alien living in any of your towns, and he may eat
  it, or you may sell it to a foreigner. But you are a people holy to
  the LORD your God. Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk.

What does this law mean really, is there some spiritual significance I am not getting?

There is much debate about this one but I think the Rabbis never understood it, which causes trouble to some Christian commentators as well.  It reminds me of this:

  For it is written in the Law of Moses:“Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.” Is it about oxen that God is concerned? (1 Corinthians 9:9, NIV)

The Apostle applies this to establishing an argument that ministers should be paid for their effort. A prohibition is there about an animal but for the purposes of how we treat each other.

In this case about a goat and its mother, the lesson is we ought to respect the tender relationship of an animal and her young. The law is established about less important things to make a stronger point. God honors the relationships of a goat and her child.  How much more than should we honor the relationship of parents and children? We should not despise relationships that God honors so strictly.


How do we argue when someone posits a non-causal universe So, I've been thinking about apologetics recently, and I've come to a rather nasty knot which I've not been able to unwind. It is relatively easy to get from the idea, "there must have been a first thing" to God if we assume causality, but what if someone is not willing to stipulate causality? How do we argue for God when we cannot even agree on causality?

Do you mean that this person rejects the idea of causality itself? i.e. that he believes that things happen with no cause? Or that he rejects the idea that there must be a First Cause?

If he rejects causality, he is rejecting science as well as Christianity. You could, perhaps, propose experiments to show that the universe is predictable. Like, I hold a rock at arms length and let it go. Every time I perform this experiment it falls to the ground: it never hovers motionless in midair or flies off at an angle. Etc.

If he postulates an infinitely old universe as an alternative to a First Cause, I'd point out the Second Law of Thermodynamics: entropy. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but it tends to become more evenly distributed over time. After some amount of time, all the energy in the universe will become completely evenly distributed. As doing useful work requires energy differentials, at this point the universe would be dead. Physicists refer to this as "heat death". We can debate how long this will take, but it is a finite amount of time, so if the universe was infinitely old, it would have reached this state.

Some people try to get around this by postulating speculative theories, but none of these have any foundation in science: they are pure philosophical speculation. As far as the evidence goes, entropy is a well-established theory.


How have Churches interpreted handing people over to Satan? In Paul's letter to Timothy, Paul mentions that Alexander and Hymenaeus were handed over to Satan to 'be taught not to blaspheme'. What is an overview on how churches have interpreted handing people over to Satan?
1 Timothy 1:18-20:

  18 Timothy, my son, I am giving you this command in keeping with the prophecies once made about you, so that by recalling them you may fight the battle well, 19 holding on to faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and so have suffered shipwreck with regard to the faith. 20 Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme.

In general the phrase "Deliver this man to Satan" seems to imply some form of excommunication or another. The severity of excommunication varies widely among religions. In some religions, like the Jehovah's Witnesses, excommunication carries with it a complete severance from the group. In others, like the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church, it merely means that an excommunicant may still attend church but may not partake of the Eucharist.

  THE RESULT OF CHURCH DISCIPLINE: EXCOMMUNICATION

  "Deliver this man to Satan" (v. 5). I have translated the Greek aorist infinitive paradonai (paradounai, "to deliver") as an imperative. Handing someone over to Satan is akin to the prescription Jesus gave His disciples: treat an unrepentant sinner as a pagan or a tax collector (Matt 18:17). The command to deliver someone to Satan has a parallel in another epistle where Paul writes about some people shipwrecking their faith. "Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme" (1 Tim 1:20, NIV).

  Paul's command to hand over a person to Satan is the act of excommunication and is equivalent to purging the evil from the church (cf. v. 13). Believers are safe in the hand of God from which no one, not even Satan, can snatch them (John 10:28-29). But if a sinner is delivered to the prince of this world, he faces destruction. He no longer enjoys the protection that a caring Christian community provides. John C. Hurd puts it graphically: "The Church [is] an island of life in Christ surrounded by a sea of death ruled by Satan."[16]

  When adrift and deprived of spiritual support, the possibility is not remote that the outcast will come to his senses and subsequently repent. Here are two examples from the OT and the NT, respectively, of individuals who repented and returned to fellowship. Gomer, who as Hosea's sexually immoral wife personifies Israel, exclaims, "I will go back to my husband as at first, for then I was better off than now" (Hos 2:7, NIV). And the prodigal son repented by confessing that he had sinned against God and against his father. Of his own volition, the son went to his parental home. This Jewish son came to his senses when he worked seven days a week herding pigs for a Gentile and was physically starving. He had broken God's commands, but confessed his sin before God. In the words of the father, the wayward son was dead; but when he returned home, he was alive again (Luke 15:24, 32).

In the Rule of St. Benedict are a few chapters that deal with the subject of correction, (in particular chapters 23 - 30). This rule is still followed by thousands of Catholic Benedictine monks. In fact the Rule of St. Benedict is read aloud each day in their monasteries so that no one may claim ignorance of the Holy Rule.

Although modern interpretations may exist for the Holy Rule, it is clear that for St. Benedict a monk (nun) that is guilty of serious faults must do serious penance. "Such a one is delivered to Satan for the destruction of the flesh that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord."

The main point is that the monk must do all his work and take his meals in solitude until he has amended his life and truly repented of his sins, in particular the fault that caused the abbot to take these measures. He is also not permitted to be in choir until the abbot gives leave to do so.

St. Benedict of Nursia is commemorated as a saint in the Catholic Church on March 21, the Eastern Orthodox Churches on March 14 and in the Anglican Communion on July 11!

  Chapter 25

  Of more serious faults

  That brother who is found guilty of a more serious fault shall be excluded both from the table and from the oratory. None of the brethren shall associate with him or speak to him. Let him be alone at the work enjoined him, and continue in the sorrow of his penance, remembering that dreadful sentence of the Apostle: "Such a one is delivered to Satan for the destruction of the flesh that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord." He shall take his food alone in the measure and at the time that the Abbot shall think best for him. He is not to receive a blessing from those who pass by him, neither is his food to receive the usual blessing.

For the Eastern Orthodox Churches, excommunication is actually quite rare:

  In the Eastern Orthodox churches, excommunication is the exclusion of a member from the Eucharist. It is not expulsion from the churches. This can happen for such reasons as not having confessed within that year; excommunication can also be imposed as part of a penitential period. It is generally done with the goal of restoring the member to full communion. Before an excommunication of significant duration is imposed, the bishop is usually consulted. The Orthodox churches do have a means of expulsion, by pronouncing anathema, but this is reserved only for acts of serious and unrepentant heresy. As an example of this, the Second Council of Constantinople in 553, in its eleventh capitula, declared: "If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinarius Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their heretical books, and also all other heretics who have already been condemned and anathematized by the holy, catholic and apostolic church and by the four holy synods which have already been mentioned, and also all those who have thought or now think in the same way as the aforesaid heretics and who persist in their error even to death: let him be anathema."

The Jehovah's Witnesses have a version of excommunication as follows:

  Yes, disfellowshipping or shunning incorrigible sinners is a clear and explicit teaching in the Bible.

  In fact, Jesus Christ established it as a requirement for the Christian congregation. Anyone who believes otherwise simply does not know the Bible nor Christ.

  Jesus said: "If he does not listen even to the congregation, let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector" (Mt. 18:17).

  Smith's Bible Dictionary:

  "Excommunication, as exercised by the Christian Church, is not merely founded on the natural right, possessed by all societies, nor merely on the example of the Jewish Church and nation. It was instituted by our Lord (Matt. xviii. 15, 18), and it was practiced and commanded by St. Paul (1 Tim. i. 20; 1 Cor. v. 11; Tit. iii.10).”

  Eerdman's Dictionary of the Bible says:

  "Excommunication. The permanent or temporary exclusion of a church member from fellowship within the community. This practice, specifically mentioned in Matthew's Gospel (Mt.18:15-17) and the Corinthian correspondence (1 Cor.5:5; 2 Cor. 2:6), served 2 purposes. First, it protects the community from the harmful influence of the sinner (1 Cor.5:6-7). Second, it reminds the sinner of the sin (2 Cor.2:7) in the hope that repentance (7:9) and redemption occur...Although the term excommunication' does not appear in Scripture, the concept is clearly present. Matthew instructs the Church to treat unrepentant members likea Gentile and a tax collector' (Mt.18:17), and Paul wants the guilty party delivered "over to Satan" (1 Cor.5:5), i.e., delivered over to the realm of Satan, the world outside the Church. Church discipline, ending in excommunication, should only be used for serious matters such as blatant sexual sins (1 Cor.5:1), unrepentance (Mt.18:15-17), facetiousness (Tit.3:10-11), and the propagation of heresy (Rm.16:17). Sinners should be dealt with quickly and seriously for both the health of the community and the spiritual health of the offender."

  The NASB Study Bible says in a footnote at 1 Cor. 5:11-13: “Calling oneself a Christian who continues to live an immoral life is reprehensible and degrading, and gives a false testimony to Christ. If the true Christian has intimate association with someone who does this, the non-Christian world may assume that the church approves such immoral, ungodly living and thus the name of Christ would be dishonored. Questions would arise concerning of the Christian’s own testimony, …judge those who are within, The church is to exercise spiritual discipline over the professing believers in the church.”

  Any Christian who got involved in immoral practices would be lovingly helped to change his way (Gal 6:1; Js. 5: 19,20). If he repents “it will be forgiven him” (Jas. 5:14-16; Acts 17:30; Pro. 28:13). If they are unrepentant the true Christian congregation would keep itself "without spot from the world" by “reproving before all onlookers” “stop mixing in company” with the individual by “removing the wicked man from among ourselves" (Jas. 1:27; 1 Tim. 5:20; 1 Cor. 5:11-13).

  The true Christian religion would follow Christ’s lead and God's commands and remove willful sinners from their midst. Any religion which does not follow this mandate cannot be truly Christian. - Is Excommunication, or Disfellowshipping, a Teaching Found in the Bible?

So too the Amish practice shunninig that the wayward may come back:

  When someone leaves the Amish they think they are heading down the wrong path and to serve as a warning to the members of the church and hoping that by doing this it will make those that have left reconsider their ways. They have a members meeting after church services where they excommunicate them by practicing 1 Corinthians 5:5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. The thought of being handed over to Satan is terrifying especially since we used to believe that if a person died before they were accepted back into the church there was no hope for them.

  Any person that is excommunicated is shunned 1 Corinthians 5:11. We can still go see my parents, though they are happy to see us there is kind of a cloud of sorrow there as well. When my Grandma passed away we stayed at my parents house overnight. They gave us a bed, plenty of food, we visited, but we couldn't sit at the same table to eat, and we weren't allowed to help them work. They won't accept gifts from us, but birthdays and Christmas always brings packages in the mail from them.  Our relationship has changed. We don't call and talk with each other every week like we used to, they don't come to visit us, but there is no doubt in my mind that they still love us. - Mine is a simple question. I realize tradition is a huge part of Amish life. But I cannot understand the shunning of one who has left the order.


How do Biblical Unitarians contextually explain Thomas' exclamation at John 20:28? John 20:28 has Thomas saying

"My Lord and my God!"

For Trinitarians, this line is fairly straightforward - Thomas is recognizing that Jesus is not just Lord but also God.
How do Biblical Unitarians understand this line, in particular in terms of how context can inform our reading of this line?

Thomas’ exclamation at John 20:28 “My Lord and my God!” is the culmination of a major theme in the Gospel of John. Initially, I viewed this as problematic from a unitarian perspective, something of a question mark – now I view it as central to understanding John’s message correctly. Instead of detracting from a unitarian interpretation of John, it buttresses it, once understood in the larger context of John’s Gospel and in particular John 14, which is the previous time Jesus speaks with Thomas in John’s Gospel.
This answer won’t focus on the grammar of the phrase, but a few notes on grammar are in order. The phrase itself could refer to one thing or two things – it is ambiguous. It would unambiguously refer to one thing if it were “My Lord and God.” If John had wanted to unambiguously apply both epithets to Jesus, he could have done so that way (as in John 20:17 – “the Father of you and Father of me”). But neither of these considerations are decisive. One response to this ambiguity is to point to how Thomas’ exclamation is said ‘to him’, i.e., to Jesus, so one could argue that both ought to apply to Jesus as they are both directed towards Jesus. Although this isn’t conclusive either, it is a good point – the comments are indeed directed towards Jesus and so logically it seems they should apply towards him. In this I am in agreement with some Trinitarians, but it doesn’t work out the way many Trinitarians think it does. More on this later.
Option 1.
Thomas is saying Jesus is Thomas’ Lord and Thomas’ God. This is the standard Trinitarian interpretation, and perhaps the most common interpretation of the phrase nowadays. If you think Jesus is claiming to be God in the Gospel of John, this makes sense as a culmination of that theme, this time going from one extreme of doubt to the other of conviction not just that Jesus is alive, or the Christ and the Son of God, but God himself – although of course Thomas wouldn’t have the Trinitarian language to express this more precisely as “God the Son.”
This is problematic, however, when you start to note how many times Jesus is distinguished from God in the Gospel of John. John 8:40 says it very clearly.

“a man, sent by God”

The examples here could be multiplied many times, but a few more will suffice here to drive home the point.
John 5

“I do nothing of my own”

Could God really do nothing on his own? Much of John 5 which features an extended response by Jesus clarifying his relationship with the Father, shows a clear asymmetry between the Son and the Father – the Son is the representative, messenger, and has been delegated authority. These all point towards the Son not claiming to be God, but rather (logically enough!) the Son of God and the Messiah. ‘The Son of God’ was simply a term in common use at the time to single out the Messiah, and is routinely coupled with it (ex., Nathanael in John 1, Peter at Matthew 16:16, and Caiaphas at Matthew 26:63, Mark 14:61). The Gospels clarify that this term ‘the Son of God’ is given by God because Mary will conceive by the power of the Holy Spirit (“And now, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his ancestor David [i.e., be King]. He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.” Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?” The angel said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God.”” Luke 1:31-35).
Similarly, Jesus distinguishes between himself and God at John 17:3

“And this is eternal life. That they may know you, the only true God,
and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.”

where the context makes clear that the ‘you’ is the Father.
Similarly, John 20:31, just after Thomas’ exclamation, gives John’s summary of the most important points from his Gospel.

“But these [i.e., signs] are written so that you may come to believe
that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing
you may have life in his name.”

What are the important points? That Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God. (Note the pairing again – these are closely related in the minds of ancient Jews, as they are in Psalm 2.) No mention of Jesus being God. This is strange, if indeed Thomas’ exclamation was intended to convey that Jesus is not just the Messiah and the Son of God, but God himself.
Obviously, Option 1. is not compatible with Biblical Unitarianism, but is included here to contrast the options that follow. The rest, however, are.
Option 2.
Thomas is expressing surprise. The expression is perhaps similar to saying “Oh my God!” This sounds natural to contemporary English speaking ears, who hear those sorts of mild oaths all the time – but it becomes problematic when transposed to ancient Jewish society, where carelessly uttering God’s name would almost certainly be frowned upon – if not viewed as blasphemous or a violation of a commandment (“Thou shalt not take the Lord your God’s name in vain”). Furthermore, Thomas is making his exclamation to Jesus (“Thomas said to him”), whereas an expression of surprise is generally not most naturally understood as being said to someone.
Option 3.
Thomas is simply mistaken. He thinks Jesus is God, but he’s wrong. You can point to various people being wrong in the Gospel of John as precedent here, including Thomas (John 14). Indeed, a major theme in the Gospel of John is that people are confused about what Jesus is saying and who he is. However, this seems odd coming a) near the very end of John’s Gospel, and b) without correction from Jesus. You might think that the Gospel writer would clarify this error if it were indeed an error of Thomas’. Instead, Jesus seems to approve of Thomas’ exclamation, chiding him only for taking so long to believe.
Option 4.
Thomas called Jesus a ‘god’, not ‘God’. So the phrase would be translated “My Lord and my god,” or more literally “The Lord of me and the god of me.” (With many passages referring to God or a god, context is required in the Greek to know which is which. Ancient Greek did not make a distinction in capitalization.) The commentary to the Revised English Version (a Biblical Unitarian translation) explores Option 4. at length here (and also discusses Option 5. in brief).
This idea of Thomas saying ‘god’ here has the precedent of Jesus himself referring to the gods of Psalm 82 and comparing himself to them in John 10, and has Old Testament precedent in the application of ‘god’ to Moses (Ex.) and judges (Psalm 82), among other things, and it would represent a development of Thomas’ views concerning Jesus and so make sense as a development of a theme within John’s Gospel re Jesus’ identity. However, it is not clear how likely Thomas – an observant monotheistic Jew – would be to use the word ‘god’ to describe Jesus – even with Jesus’ own comparison and Old Testament verses. Also, John does not then go on to note Jesus is a god in his summary at John 20:31, unless you take the Christ and the Son of God to be equivalent to calling Jesus a god. So this shares a problem with Option 1.
This perhaps would be the best option for a Biblical Unitarian – if not for Option 5.
Option 5.
This is the option I will present at length here. As Biblical Unitarian Anthony Buzzard summarizes it in his commentary on John 20:28 (The One God, the Father, One Man Messiah Translation: New Testament with Commentary, footnote 741)

“Finally seeing what he had earlier in ch. 14 missed, that in seeing
Jesus you see God the Father in action and word. This of course does
not mean that Jesus is the Father! No son is his own father! Thomas
certainly did not think that the creed of Israel and Jesus (Mk. 12:29)
was suddenly destroyed! John 17:3 defines the Father as “the only one
who is true GOD.” John wrote his whole book to prove that Jesus is the
Messiah (20:31).”

Buzzard summarizes it well, but a more detailed analysis is in order. (Also see Brother Kel’s commentary here, which has inspired some of the work below.)
The immediate context of Thomas’ exclamation is seeing and more generally having first-hand sensory evidence for the resurrected Jesus, and believing that Jesus is alive. At John 20:18,

“Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples, “I have seen the
Lord”[.]”

Then the disciples at John 20:25 similarly.

“So the other disciples told [Thomas], “We have seen the Lord.” But he
said to them, “Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands, and
put my finger in the mark of the nails and my hand in his side, I will
not believe.”

Believe what? The immediate issue is belief in whether Jesus has resurrected, i.e., is alive. Thomas seems to think the other disciples saw a ghost or perhaps someone else, despite their testimonies (cf. Luke 24:36-43 “While they were talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” They were startled and terrified, and thought that they were seeing a ghost. He said to them “Why are you frightened, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? Look at my hands and my feet; see that it is I myself. Touch me and see; for a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”).
After appearing to the disciples again, John 20:27 specifically addresses Thomas who wasn’t there the first time.

“Then [Jesus] said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and see my hands.
Reach out your hand and put it in my side. Do not doubt but believe.”

Seeing Jesus’ wounds and touching them will put to rest any idea that Jesus is a ghost or someone else.
Then Thomas 20:28-29

“Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him, “Have
you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not
seen and yet have come to believe.”

Again, believe what? The immediate issue is that Jesus resurrected. But is this the extent of belief involved? After all, Lazarus was resurrected, as was Jairus’ daughter. Why was Jesus’ still being alive so important? The answer is given in the next two lines, John 20:30-31.

“Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples,
which are not written in this book. But these [i.e., signs] are
written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the
Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name.”

Jesus’ resurrection is the ultimate sign that he is, indeed, the Messiah (compare “no sign will be given to [this generation] except the sign of the prophet Jonah,” i.e., Jesus’ resurrection, Matthew 12:38-41). The whole purpose of John’s Gospel is not to demonstrate that Jesus is God, but that Jesus is (contrary to what many people at the time were saying) the Messiah.
But why does Thomas say “My Lord and my God!”, seemingly going beyond Jesus being the Messiah and the Son of God and calling Jesus instead God Himself?
Having established what the immediate context is about (that Jesus is alive, therefore has resurrected, therefore is the Messiah and the Son of God), we can now move to the larger context of this exchange in John, which gives us the straightforward reason. The larger most relevant context is John 14, which is also the same part of John where Thomas previously speaks to Jesus. Indeed, John 20:28 is a development of John 14. The greatest and final sign of Jesus’ Messiahship is that he has resurrected as he said he would. John 14:18-20

“I will not leave you orphaned; I am coming to you. In a little while
the world will no longer see me, but you will see me; because I live,
you also will live. On that day you will know that I am in my Father,
and you in me, and I in you.”

‘On that day’. Which day? The day the disciples see him, because he is still alive despite being crucified. What will happen ‘on that day’? The disciples will know that Jesus is in his Father.
John 14:20 here also nicely clarifies the idea that Jesus is in the Father and the Father in Jesus. Similarly, the disciples are in Jesus and Jesus in them. Just as Jesus’ co-inherence with God does not make Jesus God, the disciples’ co-inherence with Jesus does not make them Jesus.
Now let’s move a bit further back in John 14 to Thomas’ interaction with Jesus, John 14:5-7.

“Thomas said to [Jesus], “Lord, we do not know where you are going.
How can we know the way?” Jesus said to him, “I am the way [to the
Father], and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father
except through me. If you know me, you will know my Father also. From
now on you do know him and have seen him.”

Then Philip picks up the exchange (John 14:8-10).

“Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and we will be
satisfied.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you all this time,
Philip, and you still do not know me? Whoever has seen me has seen the
Father. How can you say ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that
I am in the Father and the Father is in me?”

Whoever has seen Jesus has seen the Father. After resurrection, Thomas sees Jesus and exclaims “My Lord and my God!” Thomas is stating his belief in what Jesus is saying here at John 14. Thomas has seen Jesus, and therefore has seen the Father, i.e., God.
That Jesus understands just the Father to be God is made clear repeatedly throughout John, perhaps most straightforwardly at John 17:3 which was quoted in assessing Option 1. above, “And this is eternal life. That they may know you [i.e., the Father], the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.”
Why is seeing Jesus seeing God? Because Jesus is the Messiah, as John makes clear in his statement of the purpose of his Gospel at John 20:31 – the messenger, representative, and one with delegated authority from God, who co-inheres with God (as the disciples will co-inhere with Jesus) and therefore says what God tells him to say and does what God tells him to do. Co-inherence is about a deep and abiding spiritual connection with God or Jesus, not identity.
Much more can be said about passages from John which inform Thomas’ exclamation, but the basic point is that John 20:28 must be read in context. The context strongly points toward Jesus claiming to be the Messiah and the Son of God, not God. The character development of Thomas, from John 14 to John 20, gives us the key to understanding Thomas’ exclamation. Now he sees Jesus’ true identity for the first time, and therefore sees his Lord, i.e., Jesus, and his God, i.e., the Father, because he now knows that Jesus co-inheres with the Father and is, indeed, the Messiah and the Son of God who does and says what the Father, i.e., God wants him to do or say.


Under what circumstances is a priest supposed to deny forgiveness to a person? As I understand it, in Roman Catholic practice, people regularly confess their sins to a priest, who then instructs them what they must do in order to be forgiven.  However, it is apparently possible for a priest to deny someone forgiveness.

So, according to Catholic doctrine or practice, what are the specific circumstances under which a priest should withhold forgiveness from someone?

For ordinary sins, the priest is supposed to deny absolution if there's no sign of contrition (see 1451-1454 here), especially when the sins are grave (mortal).

In case of excommunication, some can be lifted by any priest, some by an Ordinary (usually a bishop) or a priest appointed by an Ordinary, and some only by the pope or some priest appointed by him.
I have found some canon lawyery on this here. I can't confess I understand it fully, but I'll try to translate it: if the excommunication was explicitly declared, it can be lifted by the bishop who declared it (or someone appointed by him). If it's latae sententiae (strarted by a sin, not declared like abortion), it's under authority of the Ordinary of the diocesis where the excommunicated person lives. Priests without special authority can lift latae sententiae excommunication temporarily "if it is burdensome for the penitent to remain in the state of grave sin during the time necessary for the competent superior to make provision." I don't know what qualifies for "burdensome" here, whether it's almost automatic or just in rare situations like some known danger of death.


Is there any tradition with regards to Zechariah's prayer in Luke? Luke 1:5-13 (NIV)

  5 In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. 6 Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly. 7 But they were childless because Elizabeth was not able to conceive, and they were both very old.
  8 Once when Zechariah’s division was on duty and he was serving as priest before God, 9 he was chosen by lot, according to the custom of the priesthood, to go into the temple of the Lord and burn incense. 10 And when the time for the burning of incense came, all the assembled worshipers were praying outside.
  11 Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing at the right side of the altar of incense. 12 When Zechariah saw him, he was startled and was gripped with fear. 13 But the angel said to him: “Do not be afraid, Zechariah; your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to call him John.

What was Zechariah's prayer? One easy guess would be that he was praying for a son, but verse 7 states that his wife was barren and that both were very old, so by this point, why would Zechariah still be hoping or praying for a son? His prayer could also have been something else and God just chose to give him a son as something like a bonus, or a reward, or a gift. At a shallow reading, there don't really seem to be any clues as to what Zechariah's prayer was.

Hence, I'm asking: is there any tradition or exegesis from any branch of Christianity that states what Zechariah's prayer was? If there is a small number of different traditions, please list them together in one answer. If there are somehow a large number of different traditions, please say so and give the most widespread/mainstream ones. I expect that there'll be at least a Catholic tradition and/or an Orthodox tradition.

The other interpretation of Zechariah's prayer is related to the specific duty he was performing in the temple that day. The twice-daily incense offering is closely related to the Holy Place and our ability to enter into God's presence. This is especially seen on the Day of Atonement when the incense offering is used by the High Priest in preparation to enter the Most Holy Place.

So the incense offering is related to the atonement of our sins and our entry into God's presence. Since Zechariah was offering one of these daily incense offerings it would be quite likely that his prayer was related to the atonement of his people and their entry into the presence of God.

  "May the merciful God enter the Holy Place and accept with favor the offering of his people."

With that idea, perhaps the answer to Zechariah's prayer is that a son will be coming to him to prepare the way for the fully realized entry into God's presence in the physical form of the coming Messiah.

This idea is not original to me. Here is one link to this line of thought that Zechariah was offering the traditional prayer for God's people.


Was Bible Revealed to Jesus? (Christian Perspective) I am asking this question from a Muslim perspective. We are told that Zubur and Injeel (Old Testament and New Testament) were revealed to Moses and Jesus just like Quran was revealed to Muhammad (PBUH). From what I understand The Bible (and lets talk about new testament only), was not revelation to Jesus but rather a collection of stories and event of Jesus time which were collected later after his death. Most importantly Bible is not a divine book and was NEVER a divine book. There is no such thing as a book revealed to Jesus. Is my understanding correct. If not in what shape or form Bible was revealed to Jesus.

Again my emphasis is, is Bible the book of revelation on Jesus. I know other people wrote it but what is it's connection directly with Jesus.

Wikipedia

  Although many Western scholars[who?] believe that the Injil, in Muslim
  belief, was a scripture authored by Jesus, the author of the Injil was
  (in Muslim belief) ultimately God, in a manner similar to the way the
  Quran was revealed to Muhammad: that God inspired Jesus with the
  verbatim words of the text which were then written by Jesus' hand.[3]
  Muslims believe that Jesus, who had memorized the revelation, then
  taught it to all his disciples (al-Hawāriyūn).

Please clarify the point above. My argument is, there was no such book as Injil or new testament that was revealed to Jesus. Basically this was made up in Islam (probably because of lack of understanding) which Muslim believe to this day that the writer of Bible is God. From muslim perspective, it means only God himself revealed this directly to Jesus.

Hi and welcome to the site. Thanks for asking questions.

You are correct when you write that the New Testament was written ABOUT Jesus. It was not written by him, at least not in the sense that he put pen to paper, or dictated the words. Your quote from Wikipedia, while it may correctly describe Muslim belief, certainly does not describe Christian belief on the subject. Many parts of the New Testament were clearly not written until many years after Jesus died and ascended to heaven. If you read the New Testament you will find that many of the author's names are given in the text - for example the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark Luke and John) were written by people of that name who either knew Jesus or collected stories about him or teachings he had given, and wrote them down so they would not be forgotten. Many of the later books were in fact letters, written mainly the Apostle Paul. The letters themselves state that they are authored by Paul, and could not have been truthfully dictated by Jesus.

Where you are incorrect is in saying the the Bible is not a divine book - at least as far as Christians are concerned. Christian belief is that God caused the Bible to be written in exactly the way he wanted it, but did so through the knowledge and minds of the people who wrote it down. Christians believe that it is inspired by God and therefore infallible.

There is another sense in which you are not quite correct. Christians believe that Jesus is in fact God, at least in some sense (if you are not familiar with Christian belief in this area it's not simple enough to go into here). Because of this it is correct to say that at least in some way Jesus is the author of both the Old and New Testaments.

By the way the Zabur is attributed to David in the Quran, not to Moses. The Tawrat is the message attributed to Moses. Neither can be equated to the whole Old Testament, but only to parts of it. Much of the Old Testament was written after the deaths of both Moses and David. Also the Islam term Injeel refers not to the entire New Testament but to the Gospel (supposedly the original Gospel of Jesus).


Is the Pope the Antichrist or the spirit of the Antichrist? According to reformed theology, in the Savoy Declaration of Faith, Chapter 26 (Of the Church), paragraph 4, the Pope is the Antichrist.

There is no other Head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ; nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God, whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.

Also in the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, Chapter 26 (Of the Church), paragraph 4, we found the same, the Pope as the Antichrist.

The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the church, in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, order or government of the church, is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner; neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God; whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.

But how can he be THE Antichrist, as 2 Thessalonians 2: 2-9 says, if it is talking about a position and not a person. Would not be more in line with the concept of the spirit of the antichrist, of which it is spoken of in 1 John 2: 18-19 and 1 John 4: 2-3.
How can this paragraph be interpreted? The Pope is an antichrist or the Pope is the Antichrist?

If I say 'B is that A' it does not exclude the possibility of also saying 'C is that A'.

That the Savoy Declaration (and others that followed it) states the Pope of Rome as being 'Antichrist' does not mean that the authors meant to exclusively define 'Antichrist' to mean 'Pope of Rome'. They were locating what, to them (as Reformers), was the prime example of what they considered to be 'antichrist' in their own experience and in their own times.
The wording is quite precise :

... is that antichrist.

The very definition of the word 'antichrist' (according to the meaning of the Greek prefix 'anti' see Strong 473) is that it is in opposition to  Christ.
It is any form of religion that, rising up in an organised manner, globally, competes with Christ, as the King of Kings, reigning (by divine and angelic power) from the throne of God in heaven and competes with Christ, as the Head of the Church, reigning (in Spirit) over the Body of Christ gathered on earth.
To say, in English, 'that' antichrist does not mean it is 'the' antichrist.
The demonstrative pronoun 'that' does not have the power of the definite article 'the', in English, or in other languages. It locates something as being an example of a concept. It does not define that which is located as being the only example of the concept.
I may point to my pet, if I am displeased with its lack of loyalty to me, and say 'that Judas' meaning it has betrayed me in some fashion. But I am by no means asserting that my pet is the only representation on earth, presently, which bears treacherous characteristics.
I believe the wording of the Savoy Declaration (and its followers) is quite precise and demonstrates your alternative in your question 'an antichrist'.


How to identify a Catholic 'order' from initials that follow a nun or priest's name? I am regularly cataloguing publications written by (or about) sisters and priests. I am unfamiliar with all of the different Catholic orders. Is there an online list or reference that identifies what the initials after their names stand for?

For example:
S.J. = Society of Jesus
O.S.U = Ursuline Sisters of the Roman Union

Here is a partial list of orders with members who are/were bishops. That is this list contains only males religious societies.

Here is another 800 abbreviations including women religious.

Annuario Pontificio lists all the existing approved and recognized Catholic religious orders. You can see the 2011 list here.

That should help you to some extent. But please note that it is nearly impossible to list all religious organizations that exists now and has existed before. Religious organizations in their early stages can be limited to only certain diocese to function under the jurisdiction of a diocesan bishop.


Natural law, accident When it comes to natural law (in Catholicism perspective), I understand that there is wrong to kill, also when it's suicide, but is it wrong with self defense? And what if there is an accident? Like you forget to turn off the oven at home and someone on the block gets hurt, is that the same as taking a life? On purpose?

Generally speaking the intentions/motivations of the person make it right/wrong or allowable/forbidden.

Sin has always been rebellion against God—generally speaking, doing something that you believe to be wrong. The Jews had some mandates about accidental sins, but with the atonement that Jesus made, I don't see how there's a need for any form of repentance for things that you did not knowingly choose to do (or not do, in the case of something you ought to have done).

If someone dies due to my negligence or irresponsibility, then that might constitute a sin on my part, because I made that choice. Accidents that you could not have controlled do not constitute a choice. You're choices are what will condemn or exonerate you.