What evidence is there for the Resurrection of Jesus? What historical evidence has been used by people who argue for truth of Jesus' Resurrection?

It’s important to distinguish between the evidence and the best explanation of that evidence. This distinction is important because in this case the evidence is relatively uncontroversial.

That's actually a very good question that people do not ask as often as they should. You are right that it is important to distinguish between evidence and the explanation of that evidence.

With historical evidence, it is also important to qualify what we mean by historical "evidence." Many people today limit this to physical evidence like archaeological records - something that can be seen, felt and measured. If this is what we mean by evidence, then the answer is that we actually have no evidence! There is no physical tangible item that proves definitively that Jesus rose from the dead according to our modern scientific standards of proof.

The only evidence that exists is the accounts of eye-witnesses - both written accounts and accounts shared orally that have passed down to us as one tradition or another, often recorded in the writings of an early Christian writer (first two hundred years).

I actually think that the question is not about how we explain the evidence, but whether we accept it as fact.

History is full of events that we have no tangible, scientific proof actually happened, but events that we do have eye-witness accounts of and, generally, we accept them as factual reports of what people saw, heard and experienced. Even modern day events are like this.

Imagine that you are out hiking in the woods with two or three friends and you stop for a break by a lake to eat lunch. As you are sitting there, getting ready to bite into your apple you brought along, a deer walks out of the forest, sees you, and runs back in.

Now, what actual proof is there that this event happened? It happened so fast that everybody was shocked by what they saw, and nobody had time to pull out their phones to record it. Besides, you are out in the woods - you should have your phones off and enjoy the world around you, anyway!

The only proof that exists is your eye-witness testimony. Either we believe that it happened, or we don't. No scientific proof, no evidence. You could march people back to the spot and look for footprints, but the weather may have washed it away. But you saw it - you know that it happened.

That's all that we have with many historical events - people's eye-witness account. Interestingly, this is normally enough for us, especially if it comes from a source that we trust.

What is most striking is that the resurrection of Jesus is attested to by at least three different people who recorded what they saw and many more who shared their experience with the resurrected Jesus orally to the community around them. This is far more "evidence" than we have for most of the history that we generally accept as "factually true!"

The problem, I believe, is not with the reliability of the testimony and the fact that the resurrection is one of the most attested to events in ancient history, but with the idea of resurrection. People start with the assumption that resurrection is not possible, so immediately the story - regardless of how many eye-witnesses there were - is assumed to be not true. This is true of any story or account that includes something we believe impossible. We reject it not because we have evidence that it didn't happen, but because we have no tangible empirical scientific proof that what you are talking about is possible - no empirical "evidence" that it did happen. None that we would accept, anyway.

I think that what you mean by explanation of evidence is just this - whether we accept it as fact or not. I'm not talking about all the details about Jesus walking through walls and eating fish, but whether or not the simple fact of his resurrection is real.

I do think, however, it is precisely the evidence itself that is controversial with this issue. Do we believe that their eye-witness evidence is fact, or do we believe that it is fiction? That all comes down to whether you believe resurrection is possible.

I believe that all things are possible with God. But there is no empirical truth for that. It must be accepted by faith.


According to the Jehovah's Witnesses, where does the Devil come from? I had two ladies come over yesterday from the local Jehovah's Witness place. They asked if we knew where the devil comes from but left when my wife said we're Catholic.  As a Catholic, I've got some ideas, but if I wanted to wow them if they ever come again, where do they believe the devil comes from?

Possibly related question

Quoting from their 'Reasoning From the Scriptures Book':

"All of Jehovah's works are perfect; he is not the author of unrighteousness; so he did not create anyone wicked.  (Deut. 32:4, Ps. 5:4)  The one who became Satan was originally a perfect spirit son of God.  When saying that the Devil "did not stand fast in the truth," Jesus indicated that at one time that one was "in the truth." (John 8:44) But, as is true of all of God's intelligent creatures, this spirit son was endowed with free will.  He abused his freedom of choice, allowed feelings of self-importance to develop in his heart, began to crave worship that belonged only to God, and so enticed Adam and Eve to listen to him rather than obey God.  Thus by his course of action he made himself Satan, which means "adversary." -- Jas. 1:14, 15


According to the Catholic Church, why did Mary go with haste to visit Elizabeth? Luke 1:39-40 says that Mary went with haste to visit Elizabeth. What, according to Catholic Church, does the departure of Mary in haste to visit Elizabeth tell about Mary's personality?

Elizabeth, who had been called “barren," is going to be a mother. Gabriel, sent by God, had informed Mary of it. Shortly afterwards, Mary set out in haste for the hill country, to a town of Judah (Lk 1:39).

  She is not motivated by curiosity, nor does she make the journey to
  discover for herself whether the angel's message is true. Humble,
  filled with charity—a charity that leads her to be more concerned for
  her elderly cousin than for herself—Mary goes to the home of Elizabeth
  because she has discerned in the heavenly message a hidden
  relationship between Elizabeth's child and the Son she carries within
  her.

It is a long way—nearly a hundred miles—from Nazareth to Ain Karim, the little town in the hills of Judea where, according to tradition, Zachary and Elizabeth lived. Most likely it was Joseph who arranged the trip, looking for a caravan in which the Blessed Virgin could travel safely. He himself may have accompanied her, at least as far as Jerusalem; some commentators even think he went with Mary right to Ain Karim, which is only five miles from the capital. If so, he would have needed to return immediately to his workshop in Nazareth.

Mary entered the house of Zachary and greeted Elizabeth (Lk 1:40). According to a local tradition, the meeting of the two cousins took place, not in the town, but in a country place where Elizabeth—as the sacred text affirms (Lk 1:24)—had secluded herself for five months from the sight of curious relatives and neighbors, to raise up her heart in gratitude to God for such an immense gift.

The rest here if interested.


What caused the Fall of Mankind? Was the fall initiated by a transgression of faith, because man trusted the word of the serpent more than the word of God, or was it a transgression of God’s law (an act of disobedience)?

Do different denominations vary on how they answer this question?

It is a common understanding among Christians that Adam and Eve disobeyed God but different groups have different ways of understanding it's role spiritually.

  1 Timothy 2:14 (NIV) And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the
  woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

According to this verse, it suggests that Eve was the one who was deceived by the serpent. Here is an explanation from "Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible".

  And Adam was not deceived,.... There is no need to say with
  interpreters, that he was not deceived first; and that he was not
  deceived immediately by the serpent, but by Eve; and that he is never
  said in Scripture to be deceived, as Melchizedek is never said to have
  a father or mother. The apostle's positive assertion is to be taken
  without any such limitations or qualifications; Adam never was
  deceived at all; neither by the serpent, with whom he never conversed;
  nor by his wife, he knew what he did, when he took the fruit of her,
  and ate; he ate it not under any deception, or vain imagination, that
  they should not die, but should be as gods, knowing good and evil. He
  took and ate out of love to his wife, from a fond affection to her, to
  bear her company, and that she might not die alone; he knew what he
  did, and he knew what would be the consequence of it, the death of
  them both; and inasmuch as he sinned wilfully, and against light and
  knowledge, without any deception, his sin was the greater: and hereby
  death came in, and passed on all men, who sinned in him: but the woman
  being deceived was in the transgression: and the serpent really
  beguiled her; she owned it herself.

Adam decided to die along with his wife, this makes him the greater sinner.

Answer: The fall of mankind was initiated by the serpent's deception, followed by Eve who believed it, and finally by Adam who sacrificed his own life to share the same fate of his beloved wife.

This could be a symbol of God's love, who was ready to share our punishment for our sins, who gave His one and only Son, who died on the cross in our stead, bearing all our sins and suffered it's consequences even though He was without sin. Symbolically, Christians are the bride of Jesus Christ, who is also called the Last Adam. Adam gave his life for his wife Eve, and in the same manner, Jesus Christ gave his life for his bride, the Church. The only difference is, while Adam died with his wife but could not save her, Christ saved us through His death.

  Ephesians 5:25 (NIV) Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved
  the church and gave himself up for her.

  1 Corinthians 15:45(NIV) So it is written: “The first man Adam became
  a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.


What is the difference between Hell and Lake of Fire? The answers on this question "Heaven/Paradise/Sheol, Hell/Hades/The Lake of Fire" are not clear enough regarding difference between Hell and Lake of Fire.

  And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and
  hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged
  every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast
  into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was
  not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
  (Revelation 20:13-15, KJV)

Here is what I understand from reading the above passage. Apostle John was watching the Judgement Day event as if it was happening in front of him. He saw how the dead came to live and how their fate was decided.

Three places where the dead came from:

The sea
Death
Hell

Three things which were thrown into the Lake of Fire:

Death
Hell
The unsaved people

The word 'Hell' has other translations -

Hell (KJV)
Grave (NLT)
Hades (NIV)
Sheol (Aramaic Bible in Plain English)

The only difference I can find from this verse is that the Lake of Fire is bigger than Hell/Grave/Hades/Sheol because it can hold both death and Hell. :)

How have theologians explained the difference between Hell and Lake of Fire?

In the commentaries and studies that I'm familiar with, this isn't to be taken as two literally different places,this is merely a literary device. (And this coming from a self-described Biblical literalist.)

For example, from The Pulpit Commentary on the Bible Hub page:

  (2) The sea being a type of the ungodly nations, the sentence may mean
  those spiritually dead, but living on the earth at the time of the
  judgment. The next clause seems to support this view. And death and
  hell delivered up the dead which were in them; death and Hades (see
  Revelation 1:18; Revelation 6:8). As in Revelation 6:8, the two -
  really one - are mentioned separately, the latter being looked upon as
  the guard house of those whom the former has seized. This clause,
  taken in conjunction with the preceding one, may mean - From the
  ungodly nations, those physically living but spiritually dead were
  called up for judgment, and also those who were actually dead, having
  been seized by death and Hades.

Also, from Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

  death and hell—Greek, "Hades." The essential identity of the dying and risen body is hereby shown; for the sea and grave give up their
  dead. The body that sinned or served God shall, in righteous
  retribution, be the body also that shall suffer or be rewarded. The
  "sea" may have a symbolical [Cluver from Augustine], besides the
  literal meaning, as, in Re 8:8; 12:12; 13:1; 18:17, 19; so "death" and
  "hell" are personifications (compare Re 21:1). But the literal sense
  need hardly be departed from: all the different regions wherein the
  bodies and souls of men had been, gave them up.

Matthew McGee has a fairly comprehensive teaching on Hell that would seem toagree.

  The English word "Hell" refers to a place of eternal punishment for
  the wicked. Its meaning does not distinguish between the two separate
  places for the wicked to be punished, one temporary for the soul, and
  the other, the Lake of Fire, permanent for the soul and body. Nor does
  its meaning include the place of comfort for saints prior to Christ's
  resurrection. In normal English conversation, "Hell" is used only in
  the negative sense, with no saved people ever going there.


Why is the Son of God called the Eternal Father in the book of Alma? I happened across the following verses in the book of Alma:

  Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father? And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last;  Alma 11:38-39

This seems to differ from the Articles of Faith of the LDS Church, where it states the following:

  We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.  Articles of Faith 1:1

So, what did Amulek mean here?  Was he in error or did he have incomplete knowledge at the time?

He was using the words of the prophet Abinadi from years earlier in Mosiah 15:

1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.
2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—
3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—
4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.
5 And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people.

Jesus Christ is "the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth" because He created them (Hebrews 1:1-2). He is the Father of physical creation. (Incidentally, but out of the scope of this answer, there is great and interesting symbolism in Abinadi using the term "one God" to describe them.)
Though Book of Mormon prophets sometimes call Christ the Eternal Father, it's less commonly done today, perhaps because the distinction between Father and Son is important in LDS theology, so as to stand out from the diverse ways the Godhead/Trinity is interpreted across so many Christian denominations.


Why are Christian books not Public Domain? In Matthew 10:8, disciples were told to even freely heal people, since it was freely given.

Paul, in order to not be a burden to others, made tents to support himself.

Given this, why are most Christian books written today copyrighted, rather than in the public domain? [Yes, I know that some are freely available online; but most are not.]

One might ask: how would having such works in the public domain be useful to Christianity? For one, it would be useful to build a gigantic index, sorted by topic, where for each topic, one could look up all the well known Christian authors and read segments of their books related to the topic.

Back to the original question: why are most Christian books not public domain?

The reason why Christian books (and music) are valid objects to have copyright protection is simply because the great deal of effort in making them and in some cases a livelihood based on them.

  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? Surely he says this for us, doesn’t he? Yes, this was written for us, because whoever plows and threshes should be able to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest. (NIV 1 Corinthians 9:9-10)

A book is just a sermon in print so the laborer deserves wages for his work.  Having said this any good part of these works is God in them and not properly objects of copyright, but the copyright is for the effort of the person in the work regardless of quality. Additionally publishers make available old works providing new translations in modern language and other enhancements which qualify as a service worth payment.

Very good books will eventually be read long after their copyright expires, so in a sense God does provide them all free.  The best ones actually are free.


Why are archdeacons (Anglican, Catholic, or Orthodox) called "The Venerable"? What is the origin, in Latin and English, of this title? Wikipedia doesn't seem to provide a fleshed-out etymology of this title. Who first held it? When did its usage become applied to all archdeacons. And do archdeacons ever have issues with the title, which doesn't necessarily indicate their priestly/diaconal status?

Why are archdeacons (Anglican, Catholic, or Orthodox) called “The Venerable”? What is the origin, in Latin and English, of this title?

I have yet to find a source where where Catholic or Orthodox archdeacons are addressed as “Venerable”.

This is a Iliad address used in the Anglican Church for certain archdeacons and priests.

An archdeacon historically was the incumbent of an ecclesiastical office dating back to antiquity and up to the fifteenth century of great importance in diocesan administration, particularly in the West.

First a little history on the subject of archdeacons:

  The term "archdeacon" appears for the first time in Optatus of Mileve's history of Donatism of about 370, in which he applies it to someone who lived at the beginning of that century. From the office of the diaconus episcopi, a deacon whom the bishop selected to administer the church's finances under the bishop's personal direction, the office of archdeacon gradually developed, as certain functions were reserved to him by law. These functions included not only financial administration but also the discipline of the clergy, and examination of candidates for priesthood. From the 8th century, there was in the West a further development of the authority of the archdeacon, who now enjoyed a jurisdiction independent of the bishop.

  Large dioceses had several archdeaconries, in each of which the archdeacon (usually by now a priest), had an authority comparable to that of the bishop. He was often appointed not by the bishop but by the cathedral chapter or the king. However, from the 13th century, efforts were made to limit their authority. This was effected in part by the institution of the new office of vicar general. In 1553, the Council of Trent removed entirely the independent powers of archdeacons. Those who had been in charge of different parts of the diocese gradually ceased to be appointed. Only the archdeacon associated with the cathedral chapter continued to exist as an empty title, with duties almost entirely limited to liturgical functions.

  The title of archdeacon is still conferred on a canon of various cathedral chapters, and the word "archdeacon" has been defined in relation to the Latin Catholic Church as "a title of honour conferred only on a member of a cathedral chapter". - Archdeacon

The Catholic Church no longer employs the title of archdeacons anymore, but the Orthodox Church still has archdeacons.

Archdeacons are commonly named and addressed a Venerable in the Anglican Community. This address stems for the authority and respect that the faithful have in regards to other priests and deacons.

  Archdeacons serve the church within a diocese by taking particular responsibility for buildings, including church buildings, the welfare of clergy and their families and the implementation of diocesan policy for the sake of the Gospel within an archdeaconry. An archdeaconry is a territorial division of a diocese; these vary in number according to the size of the diocese and in a few cases an assistant bishop in a diocese will also fulfil the duties of an archdeacon in part of it, as in the Archdeaconry of Bodmin 1953–62 (the Archdeaconry of Bodmin is one of two archdeaconries in the Diocese of Truro). Recently, this type of dual role has only existed in the Bishop suffragan(-Archdeacon) of Ludlow.

  An archdeacon is usually styled The Venerable instead of the usual clerical style of The Reverend. In the Church of England the position of an archdeacon can only be held by a priest who has been ordained for at least six years. (This rule was introduced in 1840; the requirement that an archdeacon be in priest's orders was enacted in 1662.) In the Church of England, the legal act by which a priest becomes an archdeacon is called a collation. If that archdeaconry is annexed to a canonry of the cathedral, the archdeacon will also be installed (placed in a stall) at that cathedral.

  In some other Anglican churches archdeacons can be deacons instead of priests; such archdeacons often work with the bishop to help with deacons' assignments to congregations and assist the bishop at ordinations and other diocesan liturgies. The Anglican ordinal presupposes that the functions of archdeacons include those of examining candidates for ordination and then presenting them to the ordaining bishop. In some parts of the Anglican Communion where women cannot be consecrated as bishops, the position of archdeacon is effectively the most senior office a female cleric can hold: this being the current situation, for example, in the Anglican Diocese of Sydney. - Archdeacon (Wikipedia)

The term venerable seems to stem from England during the 16th century. No title of venerable in reference to an archdeacon can be found in England prior to the reformation.


Ancient Western Christianity & Indian Christians India is well outside the bounds of Roman influence, but there is evidence of Christianity in India very early. After the faith reached India, how much contact was there with Christianity in the Mediterranean world for the first 6 or 7 centuries?

The Christian's in the West did have some loose connection with those Christians in the far east due to the trade that went on with the Silk and Spice trail.   The Christians of Far Asia and The Roman empire however were mostly separated due to the political divide between Rome and the Parthian empire, and of course the vast distances that existed at a time before modern communication inventions were developed.   (I will point out an Illustration of this, the Christians of the Syriac, "Church of the East" that lived in Iraq and further East accepted the first two Ecumenical Counsels that formed the early Nicene Creed but did so 40 years after the fact, and due to the distance and traveling difficulties was not able to send delegates to both those counsels!)

Early Church historians like Eusebius, report the account that the apostle Thomas brought the gospel to India (around AD 52 according to Wikipedia) to The Malabar coast, saint Thomas was said to have been martyred by a Hindu, who stabbed him in a cave with a spear.  Besides the Thomas tradition, Christians of the East Syriac (Nestorian) tradition also gradually moved into the area as well sometime after the Fourth Century.  But needless to say, there has been a small Christian presence in India since the time of the writing of the New Testament, and for some centuries it was quite significant in numbers and social status (Christians in medieval India had a caste rank that was right below that of the Brahmin, the top caste of India).

If you are interested in this Topic, I recommend, "East of the Euphrates", by TV Philip a member of the Mar Thoma Church of India.    See the amazon link here
https://www.amazon.com/East-Euphrates-Early-Christianity-Asia/product-reviews/8172144415

(PS - I was once a member of the a Church of the East group, that had missionary ties to India.)


Was Voltaire's house being used by the biblical society? Is there any valid source for the claim that Voltaire' house has been used by the Bible Society? I heard this many times, but I've never read a valid source for it.

Apparently it is not true:

  There is an apocryphal story that his home at Ferney was purchased by the Geneva Bible Society and used for printing Bibles, but this appears to be due to a misunderstanding of the 1849 annual report of the American Bible Society. Voltaire's chateau is now owned and administered by the French Ministry of Culture.

Source: Wikipedia


Is it right for us to help more non-Christians people as compare to Christians? jesus sacrifice for us then more eligible christians or some ane else? i need the answers .. first tell me christians belong to Jesus or some one else.. if jesus sacrifice for us .. then first preference go the christians not the others religions right.. Do you know that jesus more love isreal not the others people  .. so tell me we have to prefer christianity or the buddist, muslims etc..

You should help people despite them being Christian or non-Christian

Mark 12:31 NIV

  The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no
  commandment greater than these.

What is important is that it does NOT say, "love your neighbor as yourself, if he believes like you do".  Also, I would suggest that it would be against Jesus' teachings to even consider helping someone or not based on their status of being a Christian, Jew, or neither.

There's another way to read the OP's question, which would be, "why isn't American (being a Christian nation) helping Christians in Pakistan?"  If that is the OP's intended question, then the question is political and off topic for Christianity.SE.  Christians in Pakistan (or any other country) shouldn't expect America to specifically help them due to their Christian status.  America is not a Christian nation and is not the leading voice for Christianity.  76% of people in America identify themselves as Christian.  Christians generally assert that America was founded on Christian principles and many would assume (but not say) that it is a Christian nation.  However, it's just as likely that America has influenced Christianity.  For example, toleration of other faiths is not a Christian principle - especially during the dark ages.  Does that appear to contradict the above bible quote?  Yes, yes it does.  Therefore there are differences between the mainstream Christian Church and some teachings from the bible for better or worse.  There are too many to list here and I will not engage in a comment tit for tat with anyone over this.


According to dispensationalists, does the "secret rapture" include a bodily resurrection and new earth? Do proponents of a "Secret Rapture" understand this to be a bodily resurrection?

I can only conclude that the bodies are taken into heaven as they are taken away not just spiritually but actually missing from Pilot seats and from in front of wheels of tractor trailers all while their now unmanned vehicles are crashing into and rolling over those not raptured.

Will there be a new creation in this tradition at this time or will there be a separate earth in this understanding? Will the raptured people have glorified bodies, or will that wait to the final return of Christ?

I have been unable to find any clear understanding of this event.  I assume it is a work in progress.

Dispensationalists believe that in the secret rapture, believers will receive their new, glorified bodies.  This rapture occurs prior to or during the tribulation, meaning that the current earth will continue, and only later will the new earth be made.
Glorified bodies
Dispensationalist John MacArthur, while discussing 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17 and what he believes is its teaching of a secret rapture, says:

It’s at that moment that the transformation takes place.  We who are alive and remain are here and all of a sudden we’re snatched in the moment, in the twinkling of an eye. [...] In a moment, we’re transformed into a glorified body like the resurrected body of Christ. (source)

MacArthur here uses the language of 1 Corinthians 15:52, as he and other dispensationalists believe that that passage also refers to this secret rapture:

in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. [ESV]

For example, Thomas Constable writes:

The fact that Paul included himself, in the group living at the time of the Rapture, shows that he expected that event to take place imminently. [...] The dead will rise in bodies that are not subject to corruption, and the living will receive immortal bodies, too. (source)

This understanding is also expressed by the Moody Bible Commentary and is the typical view dispensationalists: believers will be taken up (raptured) prior to final judgment, and at that time will receive their glorified bodies.
New earth
With respect to the timing of the new earth, Constable writes:

The "new earth" and "new heaven" will come into existence after the Millennium and the Great White Throne judgment. (source)

That is, following the secret rapture, the literal 1000-year reign of Christ on earth, and the final judgment, the new earth will be made.  John MacArthur concurs:

Following the Lord's return, following the defeat of Antichrist, following the banishment of Satan at the beginning of the Kingdom, following the Kingdom, following the release of Satan and his destruction, following the Great White Throne comes the new heaven and the new earth. (source)


Did St. James write the Divine Liturgy of St. James? This is related to the question titled "What is the earliest written surviving liturgy?", but different in what it is asking. I was reading on Infogalactic the following.

  The Liturgy of Saint James is considered to be the oldest surviving liturgy developed for general use in the Church. Its date of composition is still disputed, but most authorities propose a fourth-century date for the known form, because the anaphora seems to have been developed from an ancient Egyptian form of the Basilean anaphoric family united with the anaphora described in The Catechisms of St. Cyril of Jerusalem.

And the following on Catholic Encyclopedia

  That it was actually composed by St. James the Less, as first Bishop of Jerusalem, is not now believed by any one.

Did the church fathers lie?

If we consult the Orthodox Wiki here we get a small bit of history about the Liturgy of St James.

  The general scholarly consensus is that this liturgy originated in
  Jerusalem during the late fourth or early fifth century. It quickly
  became the primary liturgy in Jerusalem and Antioch. Although it was
  later superseded in Jerusalem and Antioch by the Liturgy of St. Basil
  and the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, it had already spread to other
  areas of the Church. The oldest manuscript traditions are in Greek and
  Syriac, and there are also extant manuscripts in Armenian, Ethiopic,
  Georgian, and Old Slavonic.

  One leading theory today is that of John Fenwick, who argues that the
  similarities between this liturgy and that of St. Basil demonstrate
  their respective developments from a common source, now lost, but
  which is best preserved in the Egyptian recension of the Liturgy of St
  Basil. Fenwick suggests that the Liturgy of St. James was composed by
  St. Cyril of Jerusalem c. 370.

And it continues with this:

  In the Eastern Orthodox Church, the liturgy is now generally only
  celebrated on the Feast of St. James, on October 23rd, and only in
  some parishes and monasteries, particularly in the Jerusalem
  Patriarchate. Two different rubrics are commonly followed; the
  Slavonic liturgy linked to in full below is celebrated in the
  traditional manner, ad orientem, on an altar behind the iconostasis,
  in a manner similar to the contemporary Syriac Orthodox use.

So we can see that although it may not have been written by St James it is clearly dedicated to him through its' ongoing use on his feast day.

I prefer not to take a view that castigates the Church Fathers! :)


Why do Jehovah's Witnesses not celebrate birthdays? Wikipedia states this as a fact but does not explain further. In conversations with JWs, I understood that this is based on two birthdays in the Bible:

Job's eldest son: Job was attacked by Satan on that birthday and
Herod's: John the Baptist was beheaded on his birthday

But how do these two instances become translated to a general rule for all Jehovah's Witnesses?

To begin answering your question let me first begin by saying that the Bible makes only two references to birthday celebrations:

  Gen. 40:20-22 (NWT): “Now on the third day it turned out to be Pharaoh’s birthday, and he proceeded to make a feast . . . Accordingly he returned the chief of the cupbearers to his post of cupbearer . . . But the chief of the bakers he hung up.”

  Matt. 14:6-10 (NWT): “When Herod’s birthday was being celebrated the daughter of Herodias danced at it and pleased Herod so much that he promised with an oath to give her whatever she asked. Then she, under her mother’s coaching, said: ‘Give me here upon a platter the head of John the Baptist.’ . . . He sent and had John beheaded in the prison.”

Our view on the matter is take note that God’s Word reports unfavorably about birthday celebrations and for this reason we reject participating in these sort of occasions.

There's no Bible law that says that we must not celebrate birthdays. However, if we think about it principle, then we can discern if celebrating is even close to something that God would disapprove of. After all, everything that is in the Bible is there for a reason. (2 Tim. 3:16, 17)

Also, if we take a look back into history, we can observe that:

  […] "the origins of birthday celebrations lie in the realm of magic and religion. The customs of offering congratulations, presenting gifts and celebrating—complete with lighted candles—in ancient times were meant to protect the birthday celebrant from the demons and to ensure his security for the coming year […] Down to the fourth century Christianity rejected the birthday celebration as a pagan custom.”
  —Schwäbische Zeitung (magazine supplement Zeit und Welt), April 3/4, 1981, p. 4.

  “The Greeks believed that everyone had a protective spirit or daemon who attended his birth and watched over him in life. This spirit had a mystic relation with the god on whose birthday the individual was born. The Romans also subscribed to this idea […] This notion was carried down in human belief and is reflected in the guardian angel, the fairy godmother and the patron saint […] The custom of lighted candles on the cakes started with the Greeks […] Honey cakes round as the moon and lit with tapers were placed on the temple altars of [Artemis] […] Birthday candles, in folk belief, are endowed with special magic for granting wishes […] Lighted tapers and sacrificial fires have had a special mystic significance ever since man first set up altars to his gods. The birthday candles are thus an honor and tribute to the birthday child and bring good fortune […] Birthday greetings and wishes for happiness are an intrinsic part of this holiday […] Originally the idea was rooted in magic […] Birthday greetings have power for good or ill because one is closer to the spirit world on this day.”
  —The Lore of Birthdays (New York, 1952), Ralph and Adelin Linton, pp. 8, 18-20.

Sounds familiar? Again, these references are only to show you what birthday celebrations are connected to. In sight of what you find at Deuteronomy 18:10-14, We as Jehovah's Witnesses take our stand against engaging in what the God's word speaks unfavorably of.

Does this mean that we do not celebrate anything? No.


Where did Augustine say that the same fire that tortures the damned purifies the elect? I've seen it quoted on internet sites that Augustine said that the same fire that tortures the damned purifies the elect. Supposedly he meant by this that the fires of Purgatory and Hell are the same. Where does this quote come from?

This quote does come from Augustine, but its application to the doctrine of purgatory seems to be the work of Thomas Aquinas.  Aquinas (who mistakenly attributes it to Gregory the Great) quotes similar language in his second article on purgatory from the appendices of the Summa, saying:

  On the contrary, Gregory says, "Even as in the same fire gold glistens and straw smokes, so in the same fire the sinner burns and the elect is cleansed." Therefore the fire of Purgatory is the same as the fire of hell: and hence they are in the same place.

However, the actual text, which comes from Augustine's City of God, 1.8, does not specifically reference purgatory, but affliction in general:

  For as the same fire causes gold to glow brightly, and chaff to smoke; [...] so the same violence of affliction proves, purges, clarifies the good, but damns, ruins, exterminates the wicked.

So it's questionable if Augustine meant to apply this idea to purgatory.  For what it is worth, Aquinas decides that the most likely scenario is that:

  the place of Purgatory is situated below and in proximity to hell, so that it is the same fire which torments the damned in hell and cleanses the just in Purgatory.


Do the scriptures indicate the physical appearance of the Israelites? I have seen ancient depictions of the ancient Israelites and there features were different than I expected.

Linguistic experts have stated that Hebrew is one of the early Asiatic-African languages.

The Hamitic people were a dark skinned people, Noah's wife was Hamitic, moses' wife was Hamitic, the ancient Israelites mixed with Hamitic Egyptians for centuries before exodus.

In Acts 21:37-38 the soldier mistakenly took Paul for a Hamitic Egyptian. How could the soldier mistake Paul for an Egyptian unless the ancient Israelites were of a darker skin tone?

Is there any references in Scripture to the physical identity of the ancient Israelites?

We will literally never know without a time machine. However, given the region and it's history, as well as the people living there today it's reasonable to assert that they were a mix of all types of skin tones ranging from the typical Israeli today to the darker toned Northern African people today.

The closest example to a "typical" Hamitic person is this picture of a Bashirin Hamite from Augustus Henry Keane's Man, Past and Present (1899). So if you went with Keane's findings, that'd be your closest answer. However, as I mentioned above, it's not unreasonable to assume they were the typical Israeli/Northern African tone.


Why was John the Baptist not excited at seeing Jesus at Jordan? At  Luke 1: 41  we see:

"When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the child leaped in her womb..."

We also see at John 1: 29:

"The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him and declared, “Here is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world"

One sees here that the excitement that John the Baptist had  as a yet-to-be- born baby in anticipating the arrival of the Saviour, is rather missing as he sees  Jesus coming towards him to get baptized. One interpretation could be that John had already been aquainted with Jesus as his cousin and it was not the first time that he was meeting Jesus in person . I wish to know how the Catholic Church interprets the apparent lack of excitement and joy in John the Baptist while greeting Jesus at Jordan.

St. Thomas Aquinas refers to Lk. 1:41 when commentating on Jn. 1:29:

  Note that after the conception of Christ, when his mother, the Virgin, went in haste to the mountainous country to visit John’s mother, Elizabeth, that John, still in his mother’s womb and unable to speak, leaped in her womb as though performing a religious dance out of reverence for Christ. And as then, so even now; for when Christ comes to John out of humility, John offers his testimony and reverence and breaks out saying, Look! There is the Lamb of God.

Origen does, too (as quoted in St. Thomas's Catena Aurea on Jn. 1):

  After this testimony, Jesus is seen coming to John, not only persevering in his confession, but also advanced in goodness: as is intimated by the second day. Wherefore it is said, The next day John sees Jesus coming to him. Long before this, the Mother of Jesus, as soon as she had conceived Him, went to see the mother of John then pregnant; and as soon as the sound of Mary’s salutation reached the ears of Elisabeth, John leaped in the womb: but now the Baptist himself after his testimony sees Jesus coming. Men are first prepared by hearing from others, and then see with their own eyes. The example of Mary going to see Elisabeth her interior, and the Son of God going to see the Baptist, should teach us modesty and fervent charity to our inferiors. What place the Savior came from when He came to the Baptist we are not told here; but we find it in Matthew, Then comes Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John to be baptized of him.


Why would the baptismal state of a spouse be relevant to whether someone can be confirmed in the Catholic Church? I am currently going through the RCIA process and am 4 weeks away from  being confirmed. I was just told by the priest that because my husband and I were married previously (neither in a Catholic Church) that I now need copies of our marriage certificates and a copy of my husbands baptismal certificate. There is no record of my husband being baptised and he is not a practicing catholic. What bearing does this have on me becoming confirmed?

The Catholic Church is asking for proof that your husband is a baptised Christian, baptism being the "gateway to the sacraments."

  Can.  849 Baptism, the gateway to the sacraments and necessary for
  salvation by actual reception or at least by desire, is validly
  conferred only by a washing of true water with the proper form of
  words. Through baptism men and women are freed from sin, are reborn as
  children of God, and, configured to Christ by an indelible character,
  are incorporated into the Church. (1)

Without proof, your husband is considered by The Catholic Church not baptised, which is a diriment impediment. Thus, your marriage is considered invalid.

  Can.  1086 §1. A marriage between two persons, one of whom has been
  baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it and has not
  defected from it by a formal act and the other of whom is not
  baptized, is invalid.

  §2. A person is not to be dispensed from this impediment unless the
  conditions mentioned in cann. ⇒ 1125 and ⇒ 1126 have been fulfilled.

  §3. If at the time the marriage was contracted one party was commonly
  held to have been baptized or the baptism was doubtful, the validity
  of the marriage must be presumed according to the norm of ⇒ can. 1060
  until it is proven with certainty that one party was baptized but the
  other was not. (2)

Your marriage can be rendered valid by simple convalidation...

  Can.  1156 §1. To convalidate a marriage which is invalid because of a
  diriment impediment, it is required that the impediment ceases or is
  dispensed and that at least the party conscious of the impediment
  renews consent. (3)

...or by radical sanation.

  Can.  1161 §1. The radical sanation of an invalid marriage is its
  convalidation without the renewal of consent, which is granted by
  competent authority and entails the dispensation from an impediment,
  if there is one, and from canonical form, if it was not observed, and
  the retroactivity of canonical effects. (4)

Unless your marriage is validated by The Catholic Church, you cannot be confirmed.

  Catholics seeking the sacrament of Confirmation must be married by the
  Church, either by a deacon or priest before receiving the sacrament of
  Confirmation (5, emphases added)

Your priest should have explained all of this to you. Here is a little more information.

Best wishes.


Why is the Gospel of Luke the only Gospel to claim Jesus was John the Baptist's cousin? Why is Luke's Gospel the only of the four Gospels to make the assertion that Jesus was the cousin of John the Baptist?

Luke sought eyewitness testimony for his gospel. The birth narrative and some other portions seem to be told from the viewpoint of Mary the mother of Jesus.

While it is somewhat speculative, it seems reasonable that Mary would be concerned about relationships within her own extended family much more than the majority of the early Christians. It would appear that Luke either interviewed Mary personally or talked with someone who knew her very well.

According to this article, there is every reason to believe that Mary did indeed pass on her story in detail, and we know that Luke was interested in exactly the kind of details that could only have come through her testimony.

  Did Mary provide some traditions for the Infancy narrative?
  Why would she not tell her story? It would be rather odd if she had remained silent! She was part of the Jerusalem church (Acts 1:14, with Jesus’ half-brothers), and Luke had knowledge of this lead church. He somehow collected Mary’s story and put it in his Gospel, just as he incorporated Cleopas’ and Zacchaeus’ eyewitness testimonies. The Infancy narratives in both Matthew and Luke have a huge body of scholarly literature behind them, so in an article like this one I would not dare to figure out which is the core of the story that Mary passed on, though these verses in Luke seem like good candidates for further study: 1:26-56; 2:4-7, 19; 21-49.


Where did Jesus go after he arose from the grave? In spirit of Easter coming up: Where did Jesus go after he arose from the grave?

He was spotted walking, then.....?

If he went to Heaven after rising, how long did he stay on earth and why not stay to help us out? Does the Bible address this?

John 2:22

  After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had
  said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had
  spoken.

Matthew 28 says he appeared to the two Marys, then to the 11 disciples in Galilee.

Mark 16 says he appeared to Mary Magdalene, then to 2 of the disciples, then to all 11.

Luke 24 says he appeared to 2 disciples on the road to Emmaus, then to the 11.

John 20-21 says he appeared to Mary Magdalene, then to an unspecified number of disciples (specifically not including Thomas, maybe all 10 of the others, maybe not), then to the 11 indoors, then to 6 disciples on a beach.

Ephesians 4 says he "descended into the lower parts of the Earth", which the Apostles Creed interprets as "descended into Hell".

1 Cor 15 says he was seen by Peter, then "the twelve", then "over 500 of the brethren at once", then by James, then by "all the apostles".

Acts 1 says it was 40 days from the resurrection until his ascension.

There may be other references to post-resurrection appearances that I'm forgetting.

None of these claims to be a minute-by-minute of Jesus's activities after the resurrection, so it's not surprising that some mention incidents that others don't. Mark's mention of him meeting two disciples and Luke's mention of meeting 2 disciples on the road to Emmaus are probably the same incident, but it's tough to prove. Apparently he met various groups of the disciples at different times, so figuring out which meetings in different accounts are describing the same event is not necessarily obvious.

As to why: Jesus gives (at least) 2 reasons: John 14:1 "I go to prepare a place for you." Normally understood to mean Heaven or the New Jerusalem. And John 16:5, "It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you."

Why couldn't Jesus stay here and bring the Holy Spirit, or send the Holy Spirit and then come back? I have no idea, but the plain reading appears to be that Jesus said this would not be possible.


Question about the PCUSA treatment of Scriptures I read an article the other day about the PCUSA church, and I will preface this question with the disclaimer that I have not done extensive research on the church, but it said that they hold the Bible to be doctrine and teach from it, but do not believe that it is without error. The article was written in response to the PCUSA changing their definition of marriage from "between a man and a woman" to "between two people", essentially supporting gay marriage.

  2 Timothy 3:16-17 - "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work."

If the Bible itself says that ALL scripture is God breathed, how can one believe this is not true (by saying it is not inerrant) and yet still hold it to be doctrine?

I guess I'm just curious as to the logic behind teaching from the bible which explicitly says something is wrong, but then supporting it? The Bible doesn't really seem to me like something you get to pick and choose what of it you want to believe.

If you hold from the outset that the Bible can contain errors, then it would obviously be easy to say that the passage in the Bible that says otherwise (2 Timothy 3:16-17) is itself in error. So I suppose that's the answer. Inerrancy is not a doctrine you can derive from the Bible if you don't already believe in inerrancy, since you will simply dismiss 2 Timothy 3:16-17 as wishful thinking if you aren't already convinced of the doctrine of inerrancy.  Why do people who don't believe in the Bible not all of the sudden change their minds when 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is read to them?  Because they don't believe in the Bible, so why would a quotation from the Bible convince them?

But when you're dealing with a church that doesn't believe in inerrancy, its more than with some atheist.  They need the Bible to legitimize themselves, but they don't want to accept certain things it says.  Its just like politicians who wrap themselves behind the Constitution, or more particularly the Bill of Rights, while at the same time trying to take away some of the rights guaranteed there. When you need a document to legitimize your business enterprise, you use as much of it as you want, to your profit, and reject as much of it as you don't want.


What do Latter Day Saints believe happens to persons who have rejected Christ Jesus The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints says this in their third article of faith:

We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.  http://www.mormon.org.uk/beliefs/articles-of-faith

I also found this statement while I was doing research into the subject:

As spirits, we will have an interim judgment which will determine whether our spirits go to Paradise (where the Savior went when his body was in the tomb) or to the Spirit Prison called Hell.

Is this Spirit Prison called Hell a place of eternal torment, or do those who have rejected Christ Jesus get a second chance to be saved?
On the subject of unrepentant sinners and the Telestial Kingdom I found this quote:

The Telestial Kingdom will be populated with the unrepentant sinners who, in spite of the fact that they did ultimately acknowledge Jesus to be the Christ, refused to accept His teachings or His atoning sacrifice on their behalf. They were too proud or too rebellious to care to commit themselves to Him in any way, and were willing to accept the consequences for their refusal. They will spend eternity as “servants of the Most High but where God and Christ dwell they cannot come…” Doctrine & Covenants 76:112.

I would also be interested to find out if the beliefs of Latter Day Saints on this subject have any basis in the words of Jesus as recorded in the New Testament.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe in the plan of salvation, which addresses several of the OPs questions.

Is this Spirit Prison called Hell a place of eternal torment, or do those who have rejected Christ Jesus get a second chance to be saved?

It depends, the LDS have two definitions of hell but the spirit prison definition is not eternal. From guide to scriptures, hell

Latter-day revelation speaks of hell in at least two senses. First, it is the temporary abode in the spirit world for those who were disobedient in mortality. In this sense, hell has an end. The spirits there will be taught the gospel, and sometime following their repentance they will be resurrected to a degree of glory of which they are worthy. Those who will not repent, but are nevertheless not sons of perdition, will remain in hell throughout the Millennium. After these thousand years of torment, they will be resurrected to a telestial glory (D&C 76:81–86; 88:100–101).

Second, it is the permanent location of those who are not redeemed by the Atonement of Jesus Christ. In this sense, hell is permanent. It is for those who are found “filthy still” (D&C 88:35, 102). This is the place where Satan, his angels, and the sons of perdition—those who have denied the Son after the Father has revealed Him—will dwell eternally

Scriptural basis for kingdoms of heaven solely in the New Testament are limited but they include:

Matthew 13:43 (celestial glory)

43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

John 14:2 (degrees of glory)

2 In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

1 Corinthians 15:40-42 (degrees of glory)

40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:

2 Corinthians 12:2 (celestial glory)

2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.

Other scriptures/details about kingdoms of glory can be found in True to the Faith: Kingdoms of Glory
all emphasis added by me


Why do some churches eat leavened bread and wine for the Lord's Supper? Why is it that many denominations partake of leavened bread and wine during the Lord's Supper when the bread and wine of the original Supper was unleavened? The Passover coincides with the start of the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

Theologically, Episcopalians liken the leaven to the power of the Holy Spirit giving lift and rise to the loaf. As an Episcopalian myself, however, my pragmatic analysis is that this is primarily because they like the taste better (silly 'Episcopalians).  I, too, however dislike the symbolism, because in my mind, leaven is associated with sin.


How does "Evangelii Gaudium” pose a new perspective on capitalism? In response to Rush Limbaugh's criticism of Pope Francis' Evangelii Gaudium (text), Christopher Hale said that "to call the Holy Father a proponent [of] 'pure Marxism' is both mean-spirited and naive. Francis’s critique of unrestrained capitalism is in line with the Church’s social teaching."

"Pure Marxism" aside, can anyone explain, in light of Evangelii Gaudium, what, if any, is the different perspective on capitalism that distinguishes Pope Francis from Ratzinger?

The Catholic social teaching on the subject of capitalism has been consistently promulgated by all of the last three popes in office. As always, the substance stays the same, although the tone and writing styles may or may not.
In his 1991 encyclical Centesimus Annus, Pope John Paul II reflected on socialism and capitalism in light of the recent fall of the Soviet Union. Although he acknowledged that profit has a “legitimate role” in the function of a business and that “the Marxist solution” to economic inequality had failed, he also spoke of the “inadequacies of capitalism” and said that profit is the not the only indicator that a business is doing well. The human dignity of workers matter too, and if capitalism is left unchecked it becomes “ruthless” and leads to “inhuman exploitation.”
Pope Francis's words are consistent with John Paul's:

Human beings are themselves considered consumer goods to be used
and then discarded. We have created a “throw away” culture which is
now spreading. It is no longer simply about exploitation and oppression,
but something new. Exclusion ultimately has to do with what it means to
be a part of the society in which we live; those excluded are no longer
society’s underside or its fringes or its disenfranchised – they are no
longer even a part of it. The excluded are not the “exploited” but the
outcast, the “leftovers”.

In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down
theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free
market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and
inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed
by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those
wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the
prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting. To
sustain a lifestyle which excludes others, or to sustain enthusiasm for
that selfish ideal, a globalization of indifference has developed. Almost
without being aware of it, we end up being incapable of feeling
compassion at the outcry of the poor, weeping for other people’s pain,
and feeling a need to help them, as though all this were someone else’s
responsibility and not our own. The culture of prosperity deadens us; we
are thrilled if the market offers us something new to purchase. In the
meantime all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere
spectacle; they fail to move us.  Evangelii Gaudium

Benedict did a great job of handing down the torch against radical, unbridled capitalism in his 2009 encyclical:

But the social doctrine of the Church has unceasingly highlighted the
importance of distributive justice and social justice for the market
economy, not only because it belongs within a broader social and
political context, but also because of the wider network of relations
within which it operates. In fact, if the market is governed solely by the
principle of the equivalence in value of exchanged goods, it cannot
produce the social cohesion that it requires in order to function well.
CARITAS IN VERITATE

If you pay close attention you see that the differences "perceived" do not stem from the actual words of the pope, but from the media and how its spun by them. The liberal media like to jump on Francis' side because he wears his heart on his sleeve, whereas Benedict was shunned as ultra-conservative, not because he taught anything different, but because he wanted to return to some of the liturgical traditions that pre-date Vatican II. At the same time we see radical conservatives like Rush attacking Francis who very strongly exhorts Christian leaders and laypeople to wake up and pay attention to this 30 year old teaching on the social injustices of rampant capitalistic endeavors.
This is a very volatile subject that is one spark away from igniting a politico-religious debate...so I'm going to stop here.


Roughly how many Christian priests, and how many 'rotten apples' are there? The credibility of Christianity has been severely damaged by a few Christian Priests being found guilty of molesting minors. I would like to quantify just how small a minority this is. So how many Priests/ministers are there in the world, and how many have been found guilty of pedophilia?

In a way, it would be unfair to single out the Catholic Church,given that similar problems have surfaced among Protestant clergy and Jewish rabbis. However, the Catholic Church has received most reporting on the issue of child sex abuse.  We will never know the total number of priests who have offended as the preference of most denominations, not only the Catholic Church, has always been to deny the problem if possible and, if this is not possible, to deal with it internally. It has long been the practice to cover up offences and move offending clergy to other parishes, which may be located in other countries if there is a risk of police intervention. As long ago as the early 1870s, Mother Superior Saint Mary Mackillop was excommunicated by the Church, not because she personally exposed a paedophiliac priest operating in Adelaide, Australia, but because one of her nuns simply reported the priest to his bishop, and the priest had to be relocated to Ireland.

In many cases, a priest will have died before any of his victims has plucked up the courage to report past abuse. In many more cases, victims suicide or simply choose not to relive the past trauma by going to the police. Some have received small amounts of compensation and some counselling, on the strict understanding of confidentiality. Thus, we can only look at the numbers that have been reported and hope there were not too many more.

I can best report on the problem as we find it in Australia, as a representative sample that may apply in other jurisdictions. Official figures say there were 3085 priests (1948 diocesan priests and 1137 in religious orders) and 930 religious brothers in Australia in 2009; 495 diocesian priests - nearly a quarter - are retired and if they are no longer active in the Church they are  of little interest in this type of comparison.

An incomplete list published by Broken Rites, reports that over 200 Catholic priests and brothers were tried and convicted in Australia since 1993 for criminal offences against children. A large number of priests also faced civil actions taken out by victims who were unwilling to relive the terrible events in criminal trials. Victims run into the thousands.

A newspaper article published in 12 November 2012, says a psychologist who was employed by the Brothers of St John of God claims that more than 70 per cent of the Brothers of St John of God [in Australia] are suspected child abusers. I personally note that suspicion does not mean guilt is proven.

The unstated question is whether these figures are significantly worse than those in the population at large.  I have seen Catholic suggestions that around 5 per cent of men are paedophiles, and other more specific suggestions of a similar percentage among male leaders in groups such as the Boy Scouts.


Other than non-Trinitarian, what terms are there for Christians who don't believe in the trinity? Back story: I've been looking for Christian churches in my city that don't believe in the trinity.

Research: I tried web searches for related words such as 'non-Trinitarian', 'Unitarian', 'Monotheistic' churches. I either don't get relevant results or get links to free-thinking 'Unitarian' Churches.

Objectives: I'm trying to explore the idea of Jesus being the son of God, not God incarnate. I'm also trying to avoid radically divergent groups such as the Jehovah's Witness, Seventh Day Adventists, etc. Perhaps at a deeper level, I'm trying to understand the historical Jesus' and the early church's message.

Question: What other terms are there for Christians who would believe in the specialness of Jesus and his Savior/Messiah status, but not necessarily his divinity?

The most useful term is one of those you already mentioned: non-trinitarian.

The technically correct—but practically speaking useless—term is unnitarian. As you already found out, the latter quickly becomes confusing due to its overlap with a specific denomination that has other theological (in)distinctives. There is one more related term, Arianism, which is particularly useful in tracing references to various groups that have denied the divinity of Jesus. You will usually find this term used in the context of identifying sects that differ from orthodox doctrine in not acknowledging the divinity of Christ.

Even armed with the 'right' terms, I am afraid your search may prove harder than you expect. I will take the liberty of suggesting a few reasons why this hunt will be difficult:

What you describe as your target does not exist.

To my knowledge there is no group that matches the criteria you set out. The long tail of non-trinitarian sects only gets farther off center from the ones you identify as "radically divergent".
Even theoretically speaking, it could not tenably exist.

If you are going to build a faith around a non-trinitarian version of God you are going to have to do something with the Bible. Either you discard it entirely or you give it a makeover. In order to write Christ's divinity out of the NT, you will have to take such liberties in interpretation that you will no longer have any reason to believe much of the rest of it. The foundation will be so moved that any cohesive structure you build on top of it will by necessity bear little resemblance to Christianity.

This latter route has of course been tried. It is a well traveled road. Most of those who have traveled it historically take the form of 'reconstructionist' sects—Jehovah's Witnesseses and Mormons being the best known examples. The former believe Jesus to be more angelic than divine (or human) and redefine the role of 'Messiah'. The latter completely redefine the nature of divinity such that humans can become god(s).

Alternatively there are some less well known 'renewal' sects that take a slightly different tact*. The one that comes to mind as non-trinitarian is Oneness Pentecostalism.

Finally, whatever you look for, remember in the end you are not looking for what suits you but for what is true no matter how much it might not suit you.

* For info on how this is different see What is the difference between the Jehovah Witnesses and Pentecostal Churches?, but note that in general Pentecostalism is Trinatarian so that question is only useful for understanding the relation of reconstuctionist vs. renewal sects. Oneness Pentacostal is a subset with several extra distinctives including excluding trinatarianism.


When did the Holy Family actually settle down at Nazareth? We see at Luke 2: 22- 39   the presentation of Jesus at the Temple in Jerusalem and the return of the Holy Family to Nazareth :

" When the time came for the purification rites required by the Law of Moses, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord ...........When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth "

Matt 2:21-23 narrates the settling of Holy Family at Nazareth in a different context, that is,  after the visit of the Magi, the Holy Family's escape to  Egypt and its return from that place :

" Then Joseph got up, took the child and his mother, and went to the land of Israel.   But when he heard that Archelaus was ruling over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. And after being warned in a dream, he went away to the district of Galilee.   There he made his home in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, “He will be called a Nazorean.”

Jesus was dedicated in the Temple when He was just 40 days old,  as was required by Leviticus 12:1-4  . On the other hand, the visit of Magi is believed to have taken place when Jesus was older , say two years (given by the massacre of children upto the age of two by Herod ) . Apparently, the return of Holy Family to Nazareth as mentioned at Luke 2:39 took place after a considerable gap of time .My question therefore is: How does the Catholic Church explain the gap between the time of Jesus' presentation at the Temple and that of His Family's return to Nazareth ?

When did the Holy Family actually settle down at Nazareth?

Scriptures tell us that after the Presentation of Jesus in the Temple the Holy Family went to the town of Nazareth.

  39 When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth. - Luke 2:39

Assuming the Holy Family left the next day journey from Jerusalem to Nazareth would have taken anywhere from 4 to 7 days depending on variables. But this is only one interpretation proposed by Catholic theologians and others do exist.

  It is about 120 Km from Narareth to Jerusalem and another 10 Km from Jerusalem to Bethlehem. (About 80 miles in all) If Mary had not been feeling very well it could have taken nearly a week to do the journey. - Nazareth to Bethlehem

And what are the variables that could make a trip from Jerusalem to Nazareth go faster or slower?

  Galilee is north of Jerusalem; Bethlehem is to the south. The shortest route, 70 miles more or less as the crow flies, is through Samaria. Given the antipathy between Jews and Samaritans, Joseph and Mary likely skirted the area and went around the longer way.

  Assuming an average pace of 2.5 mph, 20 miles a day, would mean a trip of four 8-hour days. Some speculation puts it at seven days, or ten. I think four days is about right. Mary in her late teens, strong, healthy peasant stock; even pregnant and near delivery she could have managed walking it.

  That is if they didn’t bother with a donkey. With a donkey, no question, it was a seven- to ten-day trip. Yes, all the images depict Mary seated on a donkey. I suggest they are wrong.

  I’ve hiked with pack burros; it is slower. A donkey will pretty much set its own pace and not usually the one you would like. You may be in front tugging a lead, but the donkey is in charge. You get to walk ahead and pretend you’re in command.

  Even if they did have a donkey, I bet she walked. Donkeys aren’t fit for riding (again, yes, there are people who enjoy it over short distances; I’m not one of them at any distance). Eighty miles riding a donkey, picturesque as might be, still works out to, oh, let’s see, yes, 80 miles riding a donkey. Sensible people that they were, they walked. - Biblical travel: How far to where, and what about the donkey?

Now settled in at Nazareth, the Magi would have visited the Holy Family in their home town.

  The Magi Visit the Messiah

  2 After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi[a] from the east came to Jerusalem 2 and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”

  3 When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. 4 When he had called together all the people’s chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Messiah was to be born. 5 “In Bethlehem in Judea,” they replied, “for this is what the prophet has written:

    6 “‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
        are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;
    for out of you will come a ruler
        who will shepherd my people Israel.’ ”

  7 Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared. 8 He sent them to Bethlehem and said, “Go and search carefully for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him.”

  9 After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen when it rose went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was. 10 When they saw the star, they were overjoyed. 11 On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh. 12 And having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod, they returned to their country by another route.

From the above passage we can notice several points that can easily go unnoticed. The Magi visited the Holy Family in a house and not a manger. The Gospel does not state that the Magi actually went to Bethlehem; only that Herod had told them that the Newborn King was to be born in Bethlehem. Thus it is very conceivable that the Magi found the Holy Family at Nazareth and not Bethlehem. The Holy Family could have returned to Bethlehem after the presentation and found a house to remain in. The Catholic Encyclopedia admits that the interpretation of these variables in unknown and unsure!

  Time and circumstances of their visit

  The visit of the Magi took place after the Presentation of the Child in the Temple (Luke 2:38). No sooner were the Magi departed than the angel bade Joseph take the Child and its Mother into Egypt (Matthew 2:13). Once Herod was wroth at the failure of the Magi to return, it was out of all question that the presentation should take place. Now a new difficulty occurs: after the presentation, the Holy Family returned into Galilee (Luke 2:39). Some think that this return was not immediate. Luke omits the incidents of the Magi, flight into Egypt, massacre of the Innocents, and return from Egypt, and takes up the story with the return of the Holy Family into Galilee. We prefer to interpret Luke's words as indicating a return to Galilee immediately after the presentation. The stay at Nazareth was very brief. Thereafter the Holy Family probably returned to abide in Bethlehem. Then the Magi came. It was "in the days of King Herod" (Matthew 2:1), i.e. before the year 4 B.C. (A.U.C. 750), the probable date of Herod's death at Jericho. For we know that Archelaus, Herod's son, succeeded as ethnarch to a part of his father's realm, and was deposed either in his ninth (Josephus, Bel. Jud., II, vii, 3) or tenth (Josephus, Antiq., XVII, xviii, 2) year of office during the consulship of Lepidus and Arruntius (Dion Cassis, lv, 27), i.e., A.D. 6. Moreover, the Magi came while King Herod was in Jerusalem (vv. 3, 7), not in Jericho, i.e., either the beginning of 4 B.C. or the end of 5 B.C. Lastly, it was probably a year, or a little more than a year, after the birth of Christ. Herod had found out from the Magi the time of the star's appearance. Taking this for the time of the Child's birth, he slew the male children of two years old and under in Bethlehem and its borders (v. 16). Some of the Fathers conclude from this ruthless slaughter that the Magi reached Jerusalem two years after the Nativity (St. Epiphanius, "Haer.", LI, 9; Juvencus, "Hist. Evang.", I, 259). Their conclusion has some degree of probability; yet the slaying of children two years old may possibly have been due to some other reason — for instance, a fear on Herod's part that the Magi had deceived him in the matter of the star's appearance or that the Magi had been deceived as to the conjunction of that appearance with the birth of the Child. Art and archæology favour our view. Only one early monument represents the Child in the crib while the Magi adore; in others Jesus rests upon Mary's knees and is at times fairly well grown (see Cornely, "Introd. Special. in N.T.", p. 203).

It seems most logical that the Magi certainly visited the Holy Family after the Presentation. As we know the Magi presented gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh. We also know that Mary offered “a pair of doves or two young pigeons.” If they had had enough money they would have offered a lamb as was the Jewish custom in those days. Besides, Jesus is the real Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.

  …7And the priest will present them before the LORD and make atonement for her; and she shall be ceremonially cleansed from her flow of blood. This is the law for a woman giving birth, whether to a male or to a female. 8But if she cannot afford a lamb, she shall bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. Then the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean.’” - …7And the priest will present them before the LORD and make atonement for her; and she shall be ceremonially cleansed from her flow of blood. This is the law for a woman giving birth, whether to a male or to a female. 8But if she cannot afford a lamb, she shall bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. Then the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean.’”- …7And the priest will present them before the LORD and make atonement for her; and she shall be ceremonially cleansed from her flow of blood. This is the law for a woman giving birth, whether to a male or to a female. 8But if she cannot afford a lamb, she shall bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. Then the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean.’” - Leviticus 12:7-8

To further show that the Church does not know exactly how to explain the Biblical texts surrounding the events of Our Lord’s birth, I am going to let Fr. Ryan Erlenbus explain the differences in the various time scenarios proposed by Catholic theologians. It is impossible to know for certain when the Magi actually visited the Holy Family.

  The Magi must have arrived shortly after Christ’s Nativity

  There are several points which must be recalled from the biblical narrative: The Magi visit Christ in Bethlehem; the Magi visit Christ in what Matthew calls a “home,” which may be different from the “stable” where Luke states the Child was born; after the Presentation in the Temple (forty days after the Birth), Luke tells us that Jesus was taken to Nazareth; it seems that Joseph took his family to Egypt fairly soon after the Magi departed; when Herod realized he was deceived he had the children in Bethlehem and the surrounding towns killed.

  In the previous article, we have seen that the Child was born in a stable and adored that night by the shepherds. However, the Magi probably came shortly later, after the Holy Family had received hospitality in some home in Bethlehem (hence, Matthew speaks of a house). Thus, we can be reasonably certain that the Magi came to Bethlehem at least a day or two after the Nativity. However, it is most certain that they did not come any later than forty days after Christ’s birth, since then the Holy Family would not be in Bethlehem, but in Nazareth (since Luke states that they returned to Nazareth after the Presentation in the Temple which, according to the Law, took place forty days after birth). Hence, we can reasonably conclude that the Magi arrived in Bethlehem somewhere between the second and the fortieth day after Christmas – why not accept the tradition of the thirteenth day?

  The star appeared on the day of the Nativity

  St. Thomas knew of two opinions about the apparition of the star seen by the Magi: Chrysostom (or the author of the Opus Imperfectum in Mtt.) and Augustine seem to state that the star was first seen by the Magi two full years before the birth of Christ, and that it took these two years for the wise men to make the journey and arrive in Bethlehem (on the thirteenth day after the birth).

  On the other hand, St. Thomas mentions “others” who hold that the star first appeared only when Christ was born. According to this opinion, the Magi set off on their journey only on the day of the Nativity and were able to travel a long distance “owing partly to the Divine assistance, and partly to the fleetness of the dromedaries.” This is Thomas’ own opinion (ST III, q.36, a.6, ad 3).

  Yet, it may be the case that the star appeared on Christmas day and the Magi arrived thirteen days later on account of the fact that they were not from the far East, but only from a nation a little to the east of Israel – this is the opinion of Cornelius a’ Lapide, and I share it as well.

  A good reason to maintain that the star had not appeared to the Magi until the time of Christ’s birth is that, on the presumption that the Magi saw the star two years before the Nativity, the Magi would have learned of the Incarnation even before the Blessed Virgin Mary had! How strange this would be, for the Magi to know of the coming of the King before even the Mother!

  Moreover, it seems that Christ should not have been made manifest to the world until after his birth, for until the Nativity he was hidden in the virginal cloister of his Mother’s womb. It is for this reason that the Nativity is celebrated with greater solemnity than the Annunciation (the Incarnation) – it was only in the Nativity that God’s Love was revealed openly to the world. Hence, Christ should first come into the world openly (by his birth) before he is manifested to the wise men. Therefore, we ought to conclude, as a matter of fittingness, that the wise men did not see the star until the very night of the Nativity. In this way also, Christ’s birth was heralded first to the Jews (to the shepherds) and then to the Gentiles (to the Magi).

  The massacre of the Holy Innocents seems to have been nearly two years after the first Christmas

  The primary reason why some (both of the past and of the present) hold that the star appeared two full years before the Nativity is based on the following line from Matthew 2:16, “Then Herod killed all the men children from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men.” This time inquired from the wise men seems to refer to Matthew 2:7, “Then Herod, privately calling the wise men, learned diligently of the time of the star which appeared to them.” Hence, it is quite clear that Herod’s massacre of the Innocents was determined (in relation to the age of the children killed) by the time when first the Magi saw the star. The slaughter takes place about two years after the star first appeared.

  However, while it seems that we ought to maintain that the star had indeed appeared two years before the slaughtering of the Innocents, this does not determine the relation of the appearance of the star to the Nativity. For indeed, it is quite possible that the slaughtering of the Innocents did not occur until nearly two years after the Nativity. In which case, the star would have first appeared on the night in which Christ was born; and Herod would have (over a year later) killed the children of two years, since he knew that the Child could not be older than the star which marked his birth.


When did the Lion of the tribe of Judah take the book from the One sitting on the throne? And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat
  upon the throne (KJV, Rev. 5:7)

When did this moment happen? When did the Lion of the tribe of Judah (Jesus) take the book from the right hand of the One sitting on the throne (God the Father)?

(Has this moment already happened in history? If yes, when? Or is it still to take place in the future? Or is it something that is the reality outside of the realm of time and, therefore, has its impact in various degrees and ways on all ages of human history?)

Anyway, how is this question traditionally answered in Christianity? (By "Christianity" I mean those people who address Jesus directly by His name in their prayers.)

If there are differences in traditions (and, therefore, in the ways this question is answered) between different branches of Christianity, then I am more interested in how this question is usually answered in main-stream Protestantism.

After Darby, most Protestants believe that Christ has NOT taken the scroll/book.  They see it as a future event.  Prior to Darby, Protestants taught that this was historical; it had already happened.  Here's why.

Revelation was written after Christ had been resurrected and ascended.  When John sees the book/scroll in the hand of the one on the throne, he weeps because no one was worthy.  The vision at that point was of the time prior to ascension.  In other words, John already knew, but was as if he had no knowledge of this.

One of the elders tells John not to worry.  There is the Lion of the tribe of Judah.  He prevailed.  Now we are at the time post ascension.  Christ has purchased and redeemed us out of every nation on earth.  John knows this in "real time".

The word "throne" means also "seat".

Throne:

"a throne, a seat of authority," is used of the "throne"
(a) of God, e.g., Hbr 4:16, "the throne of grace," i.e., from which grace proceeds; Hbr 8:1; 12:2; Rev 1:4; 3:21 (2nd part); 4:2 (twice); 5:1; frequently in Rev.; in Rev 20:12, in the best texts, "the throne" (some have Theos, "God," AV); cp. Rev 21:3; Mat 5:34; 23:22; Act 7:49;"
Vines Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words

This would be in the holy of holies.  So Christ's sacrifice was accepted.  He was resurrected.  He ascended.  He entered the throne room.  He took the scroll.  He opened it.

To back up a bit to get another time marker, John's vision of the throne "room" begins when John is called up into heaven.  He sees various things, including the seven-fold Spirit of God.

  And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and thunderings and voices: and there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God.
  Rev. 4:5

The sequence after this is no one is found worthy.  John weeps.  Christ the Lamb slain appears.  When was this?

  And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.
  Rev. 5:6

The point is that John first sees the Spirit of God at the throne, but then after ascension, the Spirit was sent forth (perfect tense) on Pentecost CE 30.

  And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
  Acts 2:4

That was Pentecost on a Sunday 10 days after Christ ascended.

So, John is viewing Christ as taking the scroll on Pentecost after the Spirit was poured out earlier that same day.


Does God shape your destiny by the genes you inherit? From the Christian perspective: Does God allow the process of recessive genes being over-powered by dominant genes to create who you are - personality traits, interests etc. - and then see how a person with your qualities would fit best in this world. . . thus, molding your destiny?

Calvinists are famous for their belief in double predestination.

  Double predestination

  Calvinistic predestination is sometimes referred to as "double predestination."2 This is the view that God has determined the eternal destiny of every human being. He has chosen some to eternal life to be saved through the finished work of Christ, and foreordained others to everlasting punishment for their sin.

Hyper-Calvinists believe in Equal Ultimacy, which states that God actively forces everything to happen. I think this is what your question is asking about. In Equal Ultimacy, God would be forcing your genes into certain conformations and making you exactly what you are.

The opposite view of Calvinism is Arminianism. No version of Arminianism has God directly forcing people to do anything. It leaves the responsibility of the most weighty thing - salvation - on the individual; likewise with the less weighty things. Your genetics would be said to come from your parents through a system which God started and continues by His power which is resisted by the devil.

  Psalm 139:13
  For you created my inmost being;
     you knit me together in my mother’s womb.

From an Arminian perspective God's work in the earth and his ability to answer prayer also has something to do with your genetics.

I'm Arminian so I blame my negative genetic traits on my parents and occasionally the devil, and I attribute my positive genetic traits to God as answered prayers.


What is the rationale for not making the Sign of the Cross after receiving Communion? I was taught that is was an unnecessary act to make the Sign of the Cross after receiving communion and that what you just did (receiving Jesus) took precedence over signing yourself.

What is the exact reasoning behind this (or was it something I misheard?) and had anybody (besides liturgists) weighed in on how exactly one should behave after receiving Communion?

This seems semi-important because it would seem that the way a child is taught to receive Communion sticks with them their entire life.  My daughter, for instance, finds it very hard to kneel to receive, even though our bishop clearly wants us to and is having kneelers re-installed in parishes in our diocese.  My son kneels to receive with our scout troop so it's natural to him.

Signing yourself after receiving Communion seems more cumbersome when you kneel to receive, so this smacks of Post-Vatican II chicanery foisted upon us by the modern attack.  So, if you can't answer:

Why do Catholics make the sign of the cross at the Eucharist?

Then perhaps you can answer this question!

What is the rationalle for not making the Sign of the Cross after receiving Communion?

Let us start with the liturgical Rite of Pope Pius V. In the Extraordinary Rite of the Mass the priest sign the recipients of Holy Communion immediately before receiving the Sacred Host which by the way was always received while kneeling. The Faithful never signed themselves in the Old Rite.

As the priest places a Host directly from the chalice into the mouth of each communicant, he prays for life everlasting.

Holding the Sacred Host in his right hand, the priest makes the sign of the cross with it and says:

Corpus Domini nostri Jesu Christi custodiat animam tuam in vitam aeternam. Amen.

The following YouTube video explains how a priest performs these sacred actions in very clear detail (1:42:00 and following): The Latin Mass Explained and Demonstrated for Priests

We can notice two things here. The priest made the sign of the cross just before the recipient received the Sacred Host and he did not bless himself afterwards.

Why?

The priest as the minister of Holy Communion blessed us with the Sacred Host as we made our communion and now that we have received Our Lord with that same Sacred host there remains no real reason to bless ourselves since we have God residing within us. We have in a sense become a living tabernacle and dwelling place for the infinite  majesty of God's presence for the duration of time that the Host remains within us. This is Catholic teaching that is universally accepted mystery of faith.

There is no need to bless ourselves at communion because we truly have Jesus within us?

The rubrics found in the General Instruction Of The Roman Missal (Vatican source) for the Mass of Paul VI do not call for the faithful to cross themselves after receiving Communion. If a person wants to do it, as a personal act of piety, there is nothing that stops him, however. However this is not a tradition liturgical expression of faith. I myself have never heard of any priest insisting or teaching that we should make the sign of the cross at communion time.

Many priests may teach this as a pious act of Catholic piety, but it is in no way a traditional act of Catholic piety.

The Church simply asks that we receive Communion reverently, either by slightly bowing before receiving (if we receive standing up) or by kneeling (which is always an option). Communicants should respond with “Amen” when the minister says, “The Body of Christ” or “The Blood of Christ.”


Did Justin Martyr have a personal interaction with Jesus Christ? Justin narrates the manner of his conversion to Trypho the Jew. In Chapter III of his Dialogue with Trypho, he writes,

  "And while I was thus disposed, when I wished at one period to be filled with great quietness, and to shun the path of men, I used to go into a certain field not far from the sea. And when I was near that spot one day, which having reached I purposed to be by myself, a certain old man, by no means contemptible in appearance, exhibiting meek and venerable manners, followed me at a little distance. And when I turned round to him, having halted, I fixed my eyes rather keenly on him.

  "And he said, 'Do you know me?'

  I replied in the negative.

  "'Why, then,' said he to me, 'do you so look at me?

  "'I am astonished,' I said, 'because you have chanced to be in my company in the same place; for I had not expected to see any man here.'

  "And he says to me, 'I am concerned about some of my household. These are gone away from me; and therefore have I come to make personal search for them, if, perhaps, they shall make their appearance somewhere. But why are you here?' said he to me.

Who was this man that Justin met? Something tells me he's trying to tell us that he met Jesus Christ, but maybe not. Is there any evidence that it was Jesus Christ, whether elsewhere from Justin, or from other patristic writings?

Scholars typically interpret Justin Martyr's "old man" historically as a Christian teacher or figuratively as a literary device, and some argue that Justin paints him into the narrative specifically as a figure of Christ.  Andrew Hofer takes this latter approach in "The Old Man as Christ in Justin's 'Dialogue with Trypho,'" and his summary of previous scholarship proves helpful as well.

Scholars preferring a historical old man include Oskar Skarsaune, who claims that "the Old Man may have been a Palestinian or Syrian Christian," and L. W. Barnard:

  Barnard defends his historicity and considers that Justin's account of conversion at the hands of an old Christian "has a ring of truth about it and gives an adequate explanation of his later work as a Christian philosopher."

Others prefer a figurative old man.  Niels Hyldahl draws parallels with similar characters in the writings of non-Christian philosophers and suggests that the old man himself is not a Christian.  J. C. M. van Winden is among those who dispute this:

  [T]he old man is a literary figure.  He personifies wisdom, here Christianity.  He is a Christian, not a 'barbarous stranger', a figure blindly copied by Justin from post-classical literature.  Granted for the sake of argument that Justin followed a literary tradition, he certainly did so in a remarkably personal manner.

Edmond Robillard extends van Winden's analysis and connects the old man with the Ancient of Days of Daniel and suggests "that the old man symbolizes either God the Father or the Word of God."  In turn, Andrew Hofer elaborates on Robillard, and argues that Justin's old man is a figure of Christ.

To defend this thesis, Hofer points to 15 parallels between Justin's story and the Road to Emmaus story of Luke 24, such as the unexpected appearance of a stranger, the teacher's apparent feint of ignorance, and the use of the prophets to teach the truth.  To defend the idea of Christ being portrayed as "old," Hofer points to the biblical connection between Jesus and the Ancient of Days in Revelation 1, as well as other early Christian writings that portray Christ, the Lord of time, as elderly.  Hofer offers many other evidences, some more technical and some merely suggestive, but generally emphasizing the similarities between Christ and Justin's portrayal of the old man as a wise, humble, and authoritative teacher.

Hofer is careful to clarify that it would be excessive to say that Justin physically saw Jesus, as the apostles did.  "Justin need not claim a singular vision," he says, "but a common teaching given by the first-begotten, pre-existing Christ about how to read the scriptures."  He summarizes his position:

  Justin Martyr draws the old man as a figure for Christ.  The pre-existent Son of God has interpreted the scriptures for Justin and given him the grace to understand, just as it was done for the first disciples after the resurrection.