Hebrews 1:8 God addressing Jesus as God In Hebrews 1:5-13, it was a first person point of view that God is speaking. In verse 8, you will see this time that God is addressing the Son - which is Jesus himself.

But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever..."

In Catholicism, Jesus is God the Son and that verse in the bible seems to agree as well.
What are other Christian denominations' points of view on this matter?

Hebrews 1:3a says “The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His being, sustaining all things by His powerful word.”  Similarly, Colossians 2:9 says “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form.”
Hebrews 1:4 calls Jesus superior to the angels.  Jesus created the angels and is above them.  No created angel can ever be called the Son of God – only Christ Jesus commands that title.
Christ’s superiority to angels is documented by seven Old Testament quotations between verses 5 and 14.  The section proves that God’s Son is worshipped by angels.  It also shows that the Son is distinguished from the Father.

You are my Son; today I have become your Father (Hebrews 1:5).

This is taken from Psalm 2:7 and is quoted in Acts 13:33-34 as proof that this prophecy was fulfilled by Christ Jesus upon his resurrection:

The fact that God raised him from the dead, never to decay, is stated in these words:

“I will give you the holy and sure blessings promised to David.”

Jews acknowledged the words “I will be his Father, and he will be my Son” (from 2 Samuel 7:14) as a Messianic prophecy.
Hebrews 1:8 is a passage that points to the deity of the Messianic and Davidic King – the Son of God.  This view is upheld by Trinitarian Protestants.


Do good works always express saving faith in Christ, even when that faith is not explicit? My understanding of the Catholic view on the relationship between faith and works is that faith and works are inseparable. Which is to say that true faith will always find expression in works, and that every good work is automatically an expression of faith. (And as such every good work leads to an increase in justification, because it demonstrates an increase in faith)

I'd like to hone in on the second part of that equation in this question: "Every good work is automatically an expression of faith." Does this hold true for people who are completely ignorant of Christ? For example if a Muslim in Saudi Arabia who has no knowledge of Christianity performs a truly good work, does that work demonstrate implicit faith in Christ?

Just to clarify the example:

The Muslim may have a totally warped view of Christianity and actually believe that accepting Christ is a heretical action/mortal sin according to Islam. So they would be explicitly denying Christ with their beliefs while implicitly demonstrating an acceptance of Christ with their actions.
By "truly good work" I'm talking about a work which truly demonstrates Christian charity. Not a work which merely appears to be good or is actually self-righteous. I'm talking about a genuinely good work which is pleasing to God. One which totally fulfils the great commandment to "Love your neighbour as yourself"
If it's the case that the Muslim demonstrates implicit faith in Christ by their good work despite explicitly rejecting Christ in their beliefs, this would lead to an increase in Justification, just as it would for a Christian.

Consequences if it is true that good works always demonstrate saving faith: It is possible to demonstrate saving faith in Christ in your actions whilst explicitly rejecting him in your mind.

To restate the question: Does the phrase Every good work is automatically an expression of faith mean that non-Christians can demonstrate saving faith through their loving works without even realising it?

Distinguo Sanctifiying grace is the grace freely given by God which saves us and it doesn't come in bushels or pecks

According to the Council of Trent sanctifying grace is not merely a formal cause, but "the only formal cause" (unica causa formalis) of our justification.
old catholic encyclopedia - justification

Actual Grace is the spiritual grease that tunes your soul into being better and better.  So, corporal and spiritual works of mercy are not the cause of salvation.   They help you stick to the narrow path, but they aren't the narrow path.
What I do not know, and prehaps only God knows, is what good acts of mercy do to the soul of the one who doesn't believe in Christ.


How are Roman Catholics to receive the holy Eucharist at Mass? What is the etiquette to be followed when receiving the holy Eucharist? Is one to kneel down? Does one receive in the hand or directly on the tongue? Are there any prescribed procedures from Vatican?

In the US, what are the guidelines on how one should receive Holy Communion?

  Those who receive Communion may receive either in the hand or on the
  tongue, and the decision should be that of the individual receiving,
  not of the person distributing Communion. If Communion is received in
  the hand, the hands should first of all be clean. If one is right
  handed the left hand should rest upon the right. The host will then be
  laid in the palm of the left hand and then taken by the right hand to
  the mouth. If one is left-handed this is reversed. It is not
  appropriate to reach out with the fingers and take the host from the
  person distributing.
  Source: The Reception of Holy Communion at Mass | USCCB.

For the Holy See's position, please see: Communion received on the tongue and while kneeling | Office for the Liturgical Celebrations of the Supreme Pontiff.

  The most ancient practice of distributing Holy Communion was, with all
  probability, to give Communion to the faithful in the palm of the
  hand. The history of the liturgy, however, makes clear that rather
  early on a process took place to change this practice.

  From the time of the Fathers of the Church, a tendency was born and
  consolidated whereby distribution of Holy Communion in the hand became
  more and more restricted in favor of distributing Holy Communion on
  the tongue. The motivation for this practice is two-fold: a) first, to
  avoid, as much as possible, the dropping of Eucharistic particles; b)
  second, to increase among the faithful devotion to the Real Presence
  of Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist.
  [...]
  In continuity with the teaching of his Predecessor, starting with the Solemnity of Corpus Christi in the year 2008, the Holy Father, Benedict XVI, began to distribute to the faithful the Body of the Lord, by placing it directly on the tongue of the faithful as they remain kneeling.

For the history of Holy Communion in the hand please see: Library: Holy Communion in the Hand? By Paul Kokoski | Catholic Culture.
Please see also: Communion in the hand: Documents and History | Most Reverend Juan Rodolfo Laise, Bishop of San Luis, Argentina.
Please see this video: Make Of Our Hands A Throne. Typical reception of Holy Communion in the US. (OP: withholding comments).

Endnote

It is important to note that no bishop or bishop conference decide on their own what manner Holy Communion should be received by the Faithful. They must first petition the Vatican for an indult and a concession be granted. cf. Communion-in-the-Hand | EWTN.
For the communicant, the reception of Holy Communion by whatever manner that is approved in their own diocese ought to be done with the right and proper reverence due to the One being received. In my diocese the Bishop asks that the communicants bow before receiving Holy Communion, which they do standing.
@AndrewLeach has shared "The practice [...] of not handing the chalice to each communicant is actually laid down in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal." This is something not observed in my parish and therefore worth investigating further.


What does it mean to be "poor in spirit"? I'm working through a study on "The Beatitudes" of Matthew 5 and would appreciate any insight into Christ's statement:

  Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
  ESV

My question is specifically in regard to what "poor in spirit" means, not "kingdom of heaven."

An interesting paradigm shift came to me from Dallas Willard's The Divine Conspiracy, 1997, which inverts the apparent formulaic assumption of "poor in spirit" to represent a bad thing. on pg. 99 of his aforementioned book he puts it this way:

  [Willard's paraphrase of Matt. 5:3] "Blessed are the spiritual zeros -
  the spiritually bankrupt, deprived and deficient, the spiritual
  beggars, those without a wisp of 'religion' - when the kingdom of the
  heavens comes upon them."
  ...

  ... The poor in spirit are blessed as a result
  of the kingdom of God being available to them in their spiritual
  poverty.

So, seeing "poor in spirit" turned into a bad thing that the kingdom of heaven's availability turns into a good thing was an interesting idea to me, but Williard fails to provide much objective or external support for this beyond his own reasoning. If you're aware of an objective or external argument supporting this perspective, please share it.

In short, any answers that can expound on the meaning of "poor in spirit" would be greatly appreciated. Please avoid giving me opinions, and please provide references for all answers, if you can. Thanks!

The Old Testament and Hebrew linguistic background of this passage should be kept in mind. Recall:

Matthew (or his source) was likely translating words that were spoken in Hebrew or Aramaic.
Both Jesus and Matthew likely had a Semitic mother tongue.
The Hebrew bible (both in its Hebrew and Greek forms) was frequently referenced explicitly by both, and in many more cases provided unstated background.

The term used is οἱ πτωχοὶ τῷ πνεύματι, (hoi ptōchoi tō pneumati) – "the poor in [or with respect to] spirit". The dative translated "in" has a broad range of meanings; this needs to be determined from context. A few relevant points of context from the Hebrew scriptures:

The Psalms, regarding poor.

The word ptōchos is the preferred (thought not exclusive) translation of the Hebrew עני (ʿānî) which carries the basic idea of "lacking" – at times in the sociologic sense (lacking property), but more often in the Psalms it denotes "neediness" with reference to God. See especially Psalms 10 and 72, where it is also sometimes translated "afflicted". As far as I see, in all of its 31 appearances in the Psalms ʿānî is used in a positive sense, characterizing those who recognize their need of God. 1
Psalm 51:17,* regarding spirit.

  The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit;
     a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.

The "spirit" here is pneuma in the Greek Septuagint, the same word used in Matthew 5. This provides a background for the idea that having a pneuma that is "compromised" in some way is a rhetorical indication of humility toward God.
Isaiah 66:2, regarding poor in spirit.

  All these things my hand has made,
         and so all these things came to be,
         declares the LORD.
   But this is the one to whom I will look:
         he who is humble and contrite in spirit
         and trembles at my word.

The word that the ESV translates "humble" is ʿānî (see #1, above), and "spirit" is translating ruach, the normal Hebrew correlate of pneuma. Here "humble and contrite in spirit" is helpfully restated: "trembles at my word."

*All quotes are ESV.

Note

1.   In this way, Luke’s "poor" that parallels Matthew’s "poor in spirit" (Luke 6:20 // Mat. 5:3) may carry the same sense (or even translate the same Semitic term?), despite the fact that the Greek ptōchos itself more often refers to economic disadvantage.

References

R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (NICNT; Eerdmans, 2007).

Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner, et al., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden; New York: E.J. Brill, 1999).

William Arndt, Frederick W. Danker and Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000).

The links in the body of the answer are to older lexicons, provided for convenience because they are freely available. It is the newer lexicons cited here that were used to inform this answer.


Do those who pray to saints ascribe to them the quality of being able to hear many people at once? I mean, there could be thousands of Orthodox Christians at this moment praying to, say, Saint Blessed Xenia of St. Petersburg, and there could probably be even more of Catholic Christians praying right now to, say, saint Patrick, let alone Mother Mary. Does that mean that all those saints have the All-knowing God's ability to hear all of those praying to them, distinguish their prayers one from another, and later adequately act on each one of them accordingly?

Time has no meaning in heaven, there is probably a more precise Thomistic answer for this question bit that should suffice.  If time is meaningless then "at the same time" is meaningless. I'll get confused if I write any more about that.

Is it possible, O Lord, that, since thou art in eternity, thou art ignorant of what I am saying to thee? Or, dost thou see in time an event at the time it occurs? If not, then why am I recounting such a tale of things to thee? Certainly not in order to acquaint thee with them through me; but, instead, that through them I may stir up my own love and the love of my readers toward thee, so that all may say, "Great is the Lord and greatly to be praised." I have said this before and will say it again: "For love of thy love I do it." So also we pray -- and yet Truth tells us, "Your Father knoweth what things you need before you ask him."
Consequently, we lay bare our feelings before thee, that, through our confessing to thee our plight and thy mercies toward us, thou mayest go on to free us altogether, as thou hast already begun; and that we may cease to be wretched in ourselves and blessed in thee -- since thou hast called us to be poor in spirit, meek, mourners, hungering and athirst for righteousness, merciful and pure in heart. Thus I have told thee many things, as I could find ability and will to do so, since it was thy will in the first place that I should confess to thee, O Lord my God -- for "Thou art good and thy mercy endureth forever."
St. Augustine of Hippo - Confessions Book 11, Chapter 1.

We not only believe that the saints can hear and deliver our prayers to God. We believe all the angels and all the saints are present at every Mass.


How do Evangelicals understand "holy children" in 1 Cor 7:14, with respect to the salvation of children dying in infancy? For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. (1 Cor 7:14, ESV)

If a child dies before being born or dies at a very young age, can we say that he or she is saved?  What if one of the parents is a believer?  And what if neither of the parents is a believer?

What is an overview of what Evangelical Christians believe on this matter?

Since the verse was not mainly addressing the state of children, what is an overview of how Evangelical Christians understand the thought that the children are holy?

How do Calvinists, Arminians, and other Evangelical traditions approach this question?

How do Evangelicals understand “holy children” in 1 Corinthians 7:14, with respect to children dying in infancy?
This is a passage where Evangelicals differ, and where Reformed Evangelicals differ amongst themselves.  I use the term “Reformed” in the sense of someone who believes in the Doctrines of Grace which most of the Reformers believed but which today is most closely linked with John Calvin.  There are Reformed Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists.
Calvin himself taught the Presbyterian form of Church Government.  He also taught that the Covenant of Grace included that the children and babies of believers should be baptised.  He took this idea from the circumcision of the people of the Covenant in the OT.
Baptists reject this part of Calvin’s beliefs and only baptise people on their own profession of faith.  Baptists would hold that Calvin imported too much of the Old Testament Covenant with the children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob into the New Covenant for all nations.  (Baptists would take issue with some of the things Calvin wrote in “The Institutes of the Christian Religion”, Book 2 and chapters 10 and 11, covering the similarities and differences between the Old Testament and the New Testament.)
I am only going to answer this from the Evangelical Reformed Baptist point of view.
The first thing to note of the verse is the context.  It might be difficult to convincingly hit the nail on the head as it were as to the primary purpose of Paul in the chapter.  (Is it about submitting to God’s providence?)  The immediate context is about how a Christian should treat his/her marriage to an unbeliever:  if the unbeliever is happy to remain married then do not seek a divorce.
One thing is certain: the context has absolutely nothing to do with infant salvation.  There are those who try to extract something about the doctrine of infant salvation with respect to the children of a believing parent from the verse, but it is actually a sign that they are rather clutching at straws to look here for evidence for this belief.   Indeed they clutch at straws when they claim to have found evidence from anywhere in the New Testament, or even anywhere in the whole Bible for this belief.  Brethren, sorry to be so blunt, but that is the way a Baptist sees it!
I believe strongly in the doctrine of infant salvation, but not for the children of believers only, but for all babies and infants everywhere.  As for the age of discretion for each one, we leave this with our gracious God.
The sermon by C. H. Spurgeon, “Infant Salvation”, is online here https://www.spurgeon.org/resource-library/sermons/infant-salvation/#flipbook/

For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. (1 Cor 7:14, ESV)

If this verse is primarily concerned with keeping the peace and submitting to the providence of God what is this verse possibly saying?   Dr Peter Masters, a leading defender of the Reformed Baptist position in the UK and to some extent worldwide through his church’s magazine “The Sword and Trowel” has proposed a translation of the verse:
“For the unbelieving husband is set apart for the wife, and the unbelieving wife is set apart for the husband.  Otherwise your children would be illegitimate, but as it is, they are legitimate.”
The idea here is that the husband is not made holy, sanctified in any religious sense, but that God has “set them apart” to be the husband/wife of the believer.  “Sanctified” has the idea of “setting apart” for holy use: God has set the unbelieving spouse apart for the believer, and because God thus legitimises the marriage therefore the children are legitimate also.
A believing parent has no Biblical warrant for believing there is any stigma attached to the children because one of their parents is an unbeliever.
Essentially believers are not to try to divorce their unbelieving spouses purely on the grounds they are unbelievers.
Let there be peace in, and submission to, the providence of God.


In which language did Pontius Pilate communicate with Jesus? According to this post:

  Both Aramaic and Hebrew were in use in the Land at the time of Jesus. However, while we cannot say one predominated, we can say that Mishnaic Hebrew was very much a living language used by people of all walks of life in Judea and Galilee.

So, maybe we are safe to assume that Jesus spoke these languages.

Yet, Pontius Pilate was a Roman, who would have spoken Latin. Would he have been able to speak Hebrew? And as such, in the Gospels' account of Pilate's encounter with Jesus, did they speak in Hebrew? Is there any evidence, or perhaps tradition on this?

There is reason to believe that the language Pilate communicated with Jesus was Greek. After all it was the language of commerce at that time throughout the Mediterranean world. Let us not forget that Pilate's inscription on the Title of the Cross was written in Latin, Greek and Hebrew. "This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was near to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin." (John 19:20)

  How do we know what languages people actually spoke in Roman Judaea? We have a lot of written evidence from the region that is contemporary with the era of Jesus: papyri, inscriptions, graffiti, and historical texts. From hundreds of examples surviving from Roman Judaea, we can easily document which languages people understood and used both in official transactions and in their daily lives. The ancient evidence is very clear on this point: the everyday language spoken by the Jewish and Samaritan populations of Palestine in the time of Jesus was Aramaic, while the official language for administrative communication was Greek.

  While Roman soldiers and officials from Rome probably did speak Latin
  among themselves, they would have used Greek to communicate with members of the local ruling class, such as Herod’s family and the Jewish high priests. - Two Archaeologists Comment on The Passion of the Christ

Here is more along this line of thinking.

  In which language did Pilate and Jesus likely converse during Jesus's trial?

  Almost certainly in Greek.

  The first language of almost all Palestinian Jews in the 1st century was Aramaic. However evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls, Jewish pseudepigraphic writings, inscriptions on ossuaries (limestone bone burial boxes), etc. show that Greek was spoken there as well. In the Mediterranean world at that time, most people were bilingual (Greek + their native language) so that they could do business with all the other ethnic groups in the Empire.

  Jesus grew up in tiny Nazareth where everyone spoke Aramaic, but lived just over the ridge from Sephoris, a large, well-to-do city where Greek was the common language. As a small-time carpenter (Gk., “tekton,” actually more like a craftsman) he would need to speak Greek to snag his share of the business there. Barring a miracle, it wouldn’t have been very cultured or even necessarily grammatically correct, but it would be understandable to another Greek speaker.

  Pilate on the other hand, given what we know of him from the Jewish writers Josephus and Philo, most likely would not have put forth the effort to learn Aramaic, the language of a people he had no respect for. Latin was actually not widely spoken at all, being confined mainly to it’s original home Latium. Outside of Rome, it was mainly used for official inscriptions and, occasionally, military orders to fellow Romans.

  But he too would have spoken Greek. So, as the scholar Joseph A. Fitzmeyer wrote:

  “In what language did Jesus and Pilate converse? There is no mention of an interpreter. Since there is little likelihood that Pilate, a Roman, would have been able to speak either Aramaic or Hebrew, the obvious answer is that Jesus spoke Greek at his trial before Pilate.”


Does God want things? What are some of the things He wants, and how did we find out? This question may appear brief, but I think it is simple enough to not need much background. Basically, I'm curious about the nature of God and His desires. Does He want things? What are some of the things He wants, and how did we find out about these things?

Citations from specific literature (Bible or otherwise) where you have evidence of His wants would be particularly helpful. :-)

God wants us to be humble, follow his rules, act right, love mercy, and have faith in him.  That is what pleases God.

  Micah 6:8 (NIV)
  He has shown you, O mortal, what is good.
    And what does the LORD require of you?
  To act justly and to love mercy
    and to walk humbly with your God.

  Hebrews 11:6 NIV
  And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

  John 14:21 (NIV)
  Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them.


How does LDS doctrine reconcile monotheism with men becoming gods? A follow-up to this question, if the LDS church teaches that men can become gods, how does it reconcile this with the concept that there is only one God?

Isaiah 45:5:

  I am the LORD, and there is no other;
     apart from me there is no God.
  I will strengthen you,
     though you have not acknowledged me,

Exodus 20:3:

  “You shall have no other gods before me.

I suppose if you wanted to split hairs, you could technically consider the LDS faith to be polytheistic, since Mormons believe God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost to be separate and distinct individuals.

Outside of that, it's pretty simple.  Mormons worship God the Father, through the Son.  While we believe that there are other gods out there, they are not our God.  I find that an analogy helps me think about this clearly: At work, I have one boss.  He is my boss and no one else is.  There are other bosses, but I do not report to them, they do not affect my quarterly reviews, and I don't really interact with them in any sort of manager-underling relationship.  The same goes for God.


What are the arguments that the book of Acts was written after 70 AD? What are the major reasons, whether theological or secular, for concluding that the book of Acts was written after the destruction of the temple in 70 AD?

Please also view the related question: What are the arguments that Acts was written prior to 70 AD?

The best place to start is with the history of the New Testament books. Nearly all New Testament commentators agree that Acts was written after Luke's Gospel and by the same anonymous author. So the next step is to establish whether Luke was written no earlier than 70 CE. I believe that this can be established by looking at two of Luke's sources and some archaeological evidence.

Mark
Adam Winn (The Purpose of Mark's Gospel, page 1) says there is a high level of consensus among New Testament interpreters in favour of the theory of Markan priority. Some excellent answers to another question, What are the arguments in favor of Markan priority? cover just some of the reasons for this conclusion. Here, I will touch on some of the evidence to show that Luke (in particular) has a literary dependence on Mark, but this can not be exhaustive in this format.

The 'Missing Block' is a substantial section of Mark, comprising a total of 74.5 verses from Mark 6:47 to Mark 8:27a, missing from Luke. This results in the curious conjunction found in Luke 9:18 "And it came to pass as he was alone praying, his disciples were with him: and he asked them ..." These clauses are more meaningful when found in Mark at the start and end of the material missing from Luke.

A technical proof is in the transmision of Markan intercalations, as explained by John Dominic Crossan in The Birth of Christianity, page 106. Simplifying a little, intercalations were a literary device in the form A1-B-A2, which adds emphasis to both event A and event B. Of the nine undisputed Markan intercalations, Matthew retains them five times and Luke does four times, otherwise copying the content but not the structure. It is clear from this that the device moves from Mark to Matthew and to Luke, but not the reverse.

If the priority of Mark is established, the next step is to determine when Mark's Gospel was written. Burton L. Mack says, in Who Wrote the New Testament, page 152, the account in Mark 13:1-12 would not have made sense before the First Roman-Jewish War had run its course and the tragic fate of the city was known - which places the authorship of Mark around 70 CE. This is the  consensus of most critical scholars. Then, it would almost certainly have taken at least 10 or 20 years for the first New Testament gospel to circulate and come to the notice of Luke's author.

Josephus
Steve Mason,in Josephus and the New Testament, chapter 6, examines some striking parallels of structure, aim and vocabulary between Josephus and Luke-Acts. If that is evidence of copying from Josephus to Luke-Acts, then Acts could scarcely have been written before the very end of the first century.

Matthew Ryan Hauge (The Biblical Tour of Hell, page 55) says that two recent studies suggest 'Luke' advanced to the early stages of a rhetorical education, which means that he was trained in the art of copying and the complexities of rhetorical composition through mimesis. One way of identifying the existence of copying or imitation is to locate any mimetic flags that may exist. Greek students were taught to insert mimetic flags that could identify their sources, to avoid charges of plagiarism. If present, a mimetic flag will be unusual for that particular genre and context. Some scholars see Luke's introductions (Luke 1:1-3, Acts 1:1), with their dedications to Theophilus, as mimetic flags identifying Josephus as one of his sources. As the only New Testament books to have such a dedication, they are unusual for this genre as well as being unusual for such short works. By comparison, longer works, such of those of Josephus, often mentioned a patron. Josephus dedicated Jewish Antiquities, Life and Against Apion to Epaphroditus. The parallel is particularly evident in Acts which looks back to the first book, much as Josephus looked back to Jewish Antiquities, in Life and Against Apion. Theophilus was a common name that means 'Friend of God', which has a strong resemblance to Epaphroditus, a common name that means 'Touched by Aphrodite'. This may not prove that Luke copied from Josephus, but is strong evidence that this may be the case.

Richard Carrier has written a good summary of some evidence in Steve Mason's book mentioned earlier.  I think their most compelling evidence that Acts must have copied from Josephus is found in its mention of some revolutionaries.  Josephus mentioned that there were many "deceivers and imposters" who led the Jewish people into revolt, giving three examples: Judas the Galilean; Theudas, who led a group of revolutionaries (Antiquities 20:5:1); and an unnamed Egyptian prophet. If there were "many deceivers and impostors", Luke need not have chosen the same names unless he only knew the names from Josephus, yet these are the very three names found in Acts (Acts 5:36-37 and Acts 21:38). Even by itself, this strongly suggests that Josephus' works were Luke's only sources for that period. Josephus says that Judas the Galilean was first (around 6 CE), Theudas was next (circa 44-46 CE) and the Egyptian was third (52-59 CE) but for literary reasons, in Antiquities XX.5.1-2, Josephus mentions Theudas before Judas the Galilean, while making it clear that Judas lived a generation before Theudas. Acts tells of Theudas and Judas in the wrong chronological order, because Luke was following the order in which Josephus wrote of them, certain evidence of literary dependence:

  Acts 5:36-37: For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought. After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing ...

Gallius
Acts refers to the judgement seat of Gallius:

  Acts 18:12 And when Gallio was the deputy of Achaia, the Jews made insurrection with one accord against Paul, and brought him to the judgment seat

The Westar Seminar on the Acts of the Apostles (Spring report 2007) says the Gallio inscription has long been thought to provide confirmation of the historicity of the story of Paul’s hearing before Gallio.  The inscription provides independent evidence that Gallio was proconsul in Corinth and indicates that he was there in the early 50s. So, when archeologists discovered a bema (a platform or dais that was used for public speeches or proclamations) in Corinth, it was interpreted to be the very bema before which Paul was judged by Gallio as detailed in Acts.

The Seminar says that L. Michael White presented new evidence that disputes this longstanding conclusion, with a reassessment of the archaeological data, suggesting that the bema was constructed after the time when Paul was there. If there was no bema, then, the Acts story can not be historical. Instead it would seem that Luke observed the existence of a bema in Corinth in his own day, in the early second century, added data he had gathered about the governorship of Gallio, and out of this created the story we have in Acts.


Five related questions regarding the relics which consecrate Roman Catholic altars? The altars in Roman Catholic churches must be consecrated with a saint's relic (preferably a martyred saint).  These "relics" are body parts, usually a small bone fragment but sometimes what is referred to as a "major" relic is incorporated within or under the altar.  A major relic could be an arm, a leg, or perhaps even an entire body.  I have five questions pertaining to this method of consecration:

Are altars with major relics more consecrated than others?  If not, why use a whole leg?
Does the relic play a role in transubstantiation?
Is there a stockpile or inventory of body parts kept somewhere awaiting the consecration of new altars?
In the event that a Roman Catholic church closes, is the relic recovered?  Is it "retired" or returned to "inventory"?
Is there a searchable database listing which relics are associated with each Church? Can we know how large a piece of saint is used or merely the saint's name?

No, size doesn't matter - grace matters.
No, transubstantiation doesn't require an altar.
No, it's not that organized.
Depends, relics cannot be sold so they either have to be retired and buried or go to other homes.  It would be up to the local Bishop to deal with storage of the altar relic. But Canon Law says the altar can lose its dedication

Can. 1212 Sacred places lose their dedication or blessing if they have been destroyed in large part, or have been turned over permanently to profane use by decree of the competent ordinary or in fact.

No database and no correlation - the relics are not necessarily related to the saint of the Church (i.e. Our Lady and St. Joseph have no 1st degree relics, so they couldn't have churches dedicated to them if that were the case). If you want to find out whose relics are at an altar, you'd have to ask someone at a parish.  I have no knowledge of any of the relics of any of the churches I go to, which is kind of sad, but might give you some indication of how important the relics are to average Catholics, it might be another "one of those things", so I wouldn't get hung up about it if I weren't a Catholic - we've got plenty of other weird stuff to worry about going on in the Church!

Also, the degrees of relics are:

1st degree
Any body part, hair or blood from the saint

2nd degree
Something that the saint touched or used during their lifetime. Saints like St. Maximillian Kolbe, who was cremated at Auschwitz, and St. Anthony of Egypt, who was buried in secret so his body wouldn't be fought over, only have 2nd degree relics.

3rd degree
Something touched to a saints grave or over their corpse.


When an offense has been committed, is it OK to talk to the other person through an intermediary or should it be direct? When an offense has been committed, does the Bible indicate it is OK to talk to the other person through an intermediary or should it be direct?

For instance, if person A offends person B, is it OK for person B to enlist person C to go to person A on their behalf (as an ambassador/diplomat/emissary), or should person B follow the steps in Matthew 18 and privately and directly go to person A?

Just trying to find any Biblical teaching or example of when sending someone on your behalf might be acceptable, or the best way to proceed.

Answer
The Bible does indicate that an intermediary can be used in a confrontation with an offender if. . .

The offender is a believer.
AND
The offender will not listen to you in private.

The Bible does indicate that an incorrect use of intermediary is one that is. . .

Out of order according to Jesus' teaching in Matt. 18:15-20, or the intermediary is used before a private encounter with the offender.
OR
One that is judged by unbelievers. A lawsuit would be a good example of this. 1 Cor. 6:1-8.
OR
One that is physically violent or spoken with harsh words. 1 Tim. 5:1-2, Matt. 5, etc.

Supporting Details
In this answer, the following passages will be used:

Matthew 18:15-20
Matthew 5:38-40
1 Corinthians 5:11
1 Corinthians 6:1-8
1 Timothy 5:1-2, 19-20

I. Jesus' Teaching
You already mentioned Matthew 18 in your question, so you've likely read it. Jesus lines out a procedure of confrontation with a brother[0].

15 “If a believer does something wrong,[a] go, confront him when the two of you are alone. If he listens to you, you have won back that believer. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others with you so that every accusation may be verified by two or three witnesses. 17 If he ignores these witnesses, tell it to the community of believers. If he also ignores the community, deal with him as you would a heathen or a tax collector. 18 I can guarantee this truth: Whatever you imprison, God will imprison. And whatever you set free, God will set free. 19 “I can guarantee again that if two of you agree on anything here on earth, my Father in heaven will accept it. 20 Where two or three have come together in my name, I am there among them.”
Matthew 18:15-20 (GW)

Jesus' outline for confrontation with a brother:

Confront the offender privately.
(You + Offender)
Move on to step 2 if the offender does not listen to you.
Confront the offender privately with one or two additional people.
(You + Offender + Witness 1)
or
(You + Offender + Witness 1 + Witness 2)
Move on to step 3 if the offender does not listen to the witnesses.
Bring the offense up to the gathering[b].
(You + Offender?[c] + Gathering)
If the offender does not listen to the gathering, treat the offender as a "heathen" or "tax collector".

From here, someone else may need to go in-depth about how a "heathen", or "unbeliever" and a "tax collector" was treated. A basic summary would be Paul's statement:

11 Now, what I meant was that you should not associate with people who call themselves brothers or sisters in the Christian faith but live in sexual sin, are greedy, worship false gods, use abusive language, get drunk, or are dishonest. Don’t eat with such people. 1 Corinthians 5:11 (GW)

To move on in the confrontation procedure, Jesus' Sermon on the Mount and classic teaching is used:

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I tell you not to oppose an evil person. If someone slaps you on your right cheek, turn your other cheek to him as well. 40 If someone wants to sue you in order to take your shirt, let him have your coat too."
Matthew 5:38-40 (GW)

Jesus calls His followers to be perfect. "Turning the other cheek" is a classic example of how Christians are expected to act. This would apply to both believers and unbelievers, but one must begin (and end) here if an unbeliever has committed an offence against them since an unbeliever skips the believer confrontation process.
II. Paul's Teaching
Paul teaches that a lawsuit against a fellow believer is "wrong" and "cheating" because the world does not judge people as God judges them. A man-made judicial system does not equal God's judgement. Even if a judge hearing the case was a believer, the judge would still be following man-made statutes, laws, rules, procedures, etc.

1 When one of you has a complaint against another, how dare you go to court to settle the matter in front of wicked people. Why don’t you settle it in front of God’s holy people? 2 Don’t you know that God’s people will judge the world? So if you’re going to judge the world, aren’t you capable of judging insignificant cases? 3 Don’t you know that we will judge angels, not to mention things in this life? 4 When you have cases dealing with this life, why do you allow people whom the church has a low opinion of to be your judges? 5 You should be ashamed of yourselves! Don’t you have at least one wise person who is able to settle disagreements between believers? 6 Instead, one believer goes to court against another believer, and this happens in front of unbelievers. 7 You are already totally defeated because you have lawsuits against each other. Why don’t you accept the fact that you have been wronged? Why don’t you accept that you have been cheated? 8 Instead, you do wrong and cheat, and you do this to other believers. 1 Corinthians 6:1-8

Paul's guidelines to Timothy support Jesus' teaching from Matt. 18 detailed above. If an offense is not corroborated by two to three witnesses, it should not even be considered.

19 Don’t pay attention to an accusation against a spiritual leader unless it is supported by two or three witnesses. 20 Reprimand those leaders who sin. Do it in front of everyone so that the other leaders will also be afraid. 1 Timothy 5:19-20

Footnotes:
[0] "Brother" will be defined here as "a fellow Christian", or "one who claims to be a follower of Christ".
[a] Matthew 18:15 Some manuscripts and translations add “against you.”
This would need to be addressed in the Biblical Hermeneutics site rather than here if it was to come up as an issue. https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/
[b] Ecclasia -- the gathering, congregation, assembly, or church.
[c] It is not clear if the offender needs to be present while the offense is brought up to the "gathering".

Further: Paul gives guidelines on how to confront certain believers. Addressing Timothy, Paul advised him to discuss problems with fellow believers as if they were Timothy's family members. Though it does not answer the question, vs.1-2 help differentiate between different scenarios in which one might consider confronting an offender. Paul does seem to suggest gentle words with certain people and a reprimand with more influential spiritual leaders.

1 Never use harsh words when you correct an older man, but talk to him as if he were your father. Talk to younger men as if they were your brothers, 2 older women as if they were your mothers, and younger women as if they were your sisters, while keeping yourself morally pure. 20 Reprimand those leaders who sin. Do it in front of everyone so that the other leaders will also be afraid. 1 Timothy 5:1-2, 20


Jesus called God his own Father, and this is supposed to mean that Jesus is equal with God. Why? John 5:18 reads as follows:

  This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

My question has do with the logic inherent in this verse.  I don't understand why calling God your Father makes you equal with God.  (Please understand that I'm not questioning Jesus' equality with God the Father.  I'm merely confused about the logic in this verse as the reason for said equality.)  Humanly speaking, I do not see a father and his son as equals.

TLDR;

In this passage, Jesus uses language claiming God as a personal father; a begetting father, rather than in an abstract, "God is the Father of Humanity" sort of way.

From here, the Jews performed simple deductive logic; the son of God is a god, therefore Jesus is claiming to be a god.

More specifically, Jesus was claiming to be as divine as God, and therefore endowed with the same authority and doing the same kinds of works.

God the Father doesn't rest on the Sabbath and therefore neither does his son and only God can heal, and Jesus performed a healing, etc

Background:

The issue at hand for the Jewish leadership was that Jesus was widely perceived by the people as a prophet; a sentiment which was backed by his continuous miracle working and moral teaching. However, the common understanding was that God does not hear sinners:

  Now we know that God does not hear sinners; but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does
  His will, He hears him. - John 9:31, New King James Version

In healing on the Sabbath, Jesus was performing a forbidden "work" for which the Jewish Leaders sought to rebuke Him. (See John 5:16-17)

Worse still, in commanding the man to carry his bed upon being healed, Jesus was causing another man to sin. In the perception of the Pharisees, Jesus was guilty of at least 2 sins.

How then could Jesus perform these works if he was a sinner, they wanted to know? In an effort to discredit Him, the Jewish Elders came forward with their accusation and questioned Him.

Interpretation

On the whole, this passage is interpreted by commentators as being a claim of Divinity by Jesus Christ; either by virtue of doing a "divine work," or by his claim to being the Son of God or by virtue of a combination of these factors.

The traditional Patristic interpretation of this passage sees this as Jesus revealing himself to be a partaker of the divine essence, sharing in the power and authority that accompanies it. Basically, if God is not human, but divine, his son must be divine as well.

  "Were He not the Son by nature, and of the same substance, this defense would be worse than the former accusation made. For no prefect could clear Himself from a transgression of the king's law, by urging that the king broke it also. But, on the supposition of the Son's equality to the Father, the defense is valid. It then follows, that as the Father worked on the Sabbath without doing wrong: the Son could do so likewise." - St. John Chrysostom, quoted in Thomas Aquinas' Catena Aurea (The Golden Chain)

In this quotation, St. John Chrysostom is suggesting that it would not be a strong enough defense for Jesus to simply say "God doesn't rest on the Sabbath, so why should I?" The King as a prerogative and authority that transcends the rights of his subjects. However if Jesus was equal in privilege to by being of the same nature as God, He would not be guilty of an offense.

What St. John Chrysostom implies in his exegesis of the passage, St. Augustine makes more explicit:

  "The Jews however did not understand from our Lord that he was the Son of God, but only that He was equal with God; though Christ gave this as the result of His being the Son of God. It is from not seeing this, while they saw at the same time that equality was asserted, that they charged Him with making Himself equal with God: the truth being, that He did not make Himself equal, but the Father had begotten Him equal." - St. Augustine of Hippo, quoted in Thomas Aquinas' Catena Aurea (The Golden Chain)

Being the begotten Son of God, Jesus shares in the divine nature so is "equal" by nature, entitled to the same privilege and thus exempted from the regulations of the Sabbath.

This same position is held by more recent (relatively speaking) Protestant Commentators:

  "rightly gathering this to be His meaning, not from the mere words "My Father," but from His claim of right to act as His Father did in the like high sphere, and by the same law of ceaseless activity in that sphere. And as, instead of instantly disclaiming any such meaning—as He must have done if it was false—He positively sets His seal to it in the following verses, merely explaining how consistent such claim was with the prerogatives of His Father, it is beyond all doubt that we have here an assumption of peculiar personal Sonship, or participation in the Father's essential nature." - Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible by Robert Jamieson, A.R. Fausset, and David Brown

In addition to affirming that Jesus is claiming to participate in the divine nature, notice  that the commentators call attention to the "peculiar personal Sonship" which Jesus is claiming as evidence for this participation. In this, the commentators are calling attention to the fact that the language Jesus used to refer to God as His father was much the same as a human would use to refer to their own biological father; this was not an abstract statement of "God as father of humanity" but rather a claim of divine descent.

The commentators also draw attention to the fact that due to His Father's example, and His participation in the divine nature Jesus was exempt from the Sabbath regulations, and like His Father would to continue working.

The sentiment is shared by both John Calvin, and Patristic Authors:

  "But it is chiefly concerning himself that Christ speaks, to whom the Jews were more hostile. He declares that the soundness of body which he has restored to the diseased man is a demonstration of his divine power. He asserts that he is the Son of God, and that he acts in the same manner as his Father." - John Calvin, Commentary on John - Volume 1

John Calvin returns to this theme more than once in his commentary on this passage, that the act of healing is a divine work, and that the Son of God is divine, therefore Jesus as the divine Son of God was and authority beyond the regulations of the Sabbath.

  "not in the secondary sense in which it is true of all of us, but as implying equality. For we all of us say to God, Our Father, Which art in heaven. And the Jews say, You are our Father. They were not angry then because He called God His Father, but because He called Him so in a sense different from men." - St. Augustine of Hippo, quoted in Thomas Aquinas' Catena Aurea (The Golden Chain)

In this passage, St. Augustine shows his interpretation of Jesus' choice of language as being a demonstration of a "peculiar personal sonship."

  "The words, My Father works hitherto, and I work, suppose Him to be equal to the Father. This being understood, it followed from the Father's working, that the Son worked: inasmuch as the Father does nothing without the Son." - St. Augustine of Hippo, quoted in Thomas Aquinas' Catena Aurea (The Golden Chain)

In this passage we see St. Augustine referencing the divine act of healing as another claim to equality of divinity and therefore of authority regarding the Sabbath regulations.

  "Christ defended His disciples, by putting forward the example of their fellow-servant David: but He defends Himself by a reference to the Father. We may observe too that He does not defend Himself as man, nor yet purely as God, but sometimes as one, sometimes as the other; wishing both to be believed, both the dispensation of His humiliation, and the dignity of His Godhead; wherefore He shows His equality to the Father, both by calling Him His Father emphatically. (My Father), and by declaring that He does the same things, that the Father does, (And I work). Therefore, it follows, the Jews sought the more to kill Him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was His Father." - St. John Chrysostom, quoted in Thomas Aquinas' Catena Aurea (The Golden Chain)

And finally St. John Chrysostom touches on both themes in the above single passage.


What was the light of the first day of creation? In the Genesis account, the sun and stars are created on the fourth day:

Gen 1:14  And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years,
Gen 1:15  and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so.
Gen 1:16  And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars.]
Gen 1:17  And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,
Gen 1:18  to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.

However, light is created on the first day:

Gen 1:3  And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
Gen 1:4  And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness.

So, from the perspective of a literal reading of this account, how is this reconciled?  Is light created twice?  How could there be light without the sun and stars?

Revelation 21:23 answers this rather directly.  In imagining the new heaven and the new earth, it says:

  The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp.

John 1:5 concurs, saying:

  This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.

Thus being capable of its own luminesence, there is thus nothing to contradict the possibility that God himself was the source of the light.  There is also no need to take such an idea - that God is the light, and God speaking the Light into existence is creating himself, and contradict the notion that Jesus himself was not created.  Indeed, since Jesus was not created, he was eternal.  As John 1:1 indicates, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  Being thus present, God's glory would have been assumed to be there.  And, just like a lit candle, if its there, there will be light.

Rather, prior to his speaking, there is nothing to suggest that there was even a space into which his Light could shine.  As such, in "creating the light," he simply created the space in which his own light - the emanation of His glory - could be beheld.

The "Shekinah Glory" of the Lord is often compared to a bright light, so this is not altogether an unreasonable assumption.

Additionally, Isaiah 6:2 speaks of the seraphim as follows:

  Above him were seraphim, each with six wings: With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying.

If they are covering their faces, it would also be consistent with a brightness emanating from the Glory of God.

And, finally, as we are reminded every Christmas that when the angels appeared to the shepherds,

  "An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them, and they were terrified.

In seemingly every instance, the glory of the Lord shines, thus producing its own light.


Why does Christianity claim to be the only true religion? From where does the idea that Christianity the only true religion come? Other religions claim the same. What is the basis for the Christian claim?

At one level, this question is easily answerable.

Christianity is based upon the idea that Jesus is who He claimed to be.  And He said, in John 14:6

  I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father
  except through me.

And if Jesus is who He claimed to be, then Christianity must be the only true religion, because He said specifically "No one comes to the Father except through me".

At another level, there are other answers, but too large to fit in a single answer here.

If you're looking for external evidence, there's an entire field of study, known as Apologetics that seeks to provide a defense for the veracity of Christianity, its teachings, the identity of God, and the Truth of the Bible.

There are volumes of information available (as well as counter-points arguing against the Truth of Christianity).  Put simply, there's much too much information to make your question answerable in this forum. A Google search for "Apologetics," however, is a good place to start.


Do Catholics celebrate Halloween? I just read this apparent quote from Pope Francis on faithreel.com (accessed October, 2014):

  Most churches agree with what Pope Francis has expressed in this
  opinion, “Many think Halloween is a simple carnival like celebration,
  it is not innocent. It is a small room leading to a much more
  dangerous one. There is always more evil rituals, sacrifices,
  defilements of cemeteries and stealing of sacred bones on Halloween.
  Taking part in Halloween is like being ritually initiated into the
  occult.”

Pretty strong words coming from the pope. Is this quote genuine? and if so, do all catholics agree with this? Is there an official stance taken by the catholic church against Halloween?

Is there an official Catholic position against Halloween?

No, there isn't.

How did Halloween originate?

Believe it or not, Halloween is of Christian origin.1

By 741 there was a feast in the Church celebrating all the martyrs and saints in heaven. By 840 it was known by the title "Feast of All Saints". Pope Sixtus IV in 1484 established November 1 as a holyday of obligation and gave it both a vigil (known today as "All Hallows' Eve" or "Hallowe'en") and an eight-day period or octave to celebrate the feast. By 1955, the octave of All Saints was removed.

In England, saints or holy people are called "hallowed", hence the name "All Hallow's Day" or "Hallowmas". The evening, or "e'en" before the feast became popularly known as "All Hallows' Eve," or even shorter, "Hallowe'en."2

1. cf. Should Catholics Celebrate Halloween?; HALLOWEEN: ITS ORIGINS AND CELEBRATION | EWTN; Halloween or Samhain? | Catholic Answers; and 2. below that stand in contrast to the article linked in OP as regards the origins of Halloween.
2. Liturgical year: October: History of All Hallows' Eve | Catholic Culture. (The reader is encouraged to read the rest of the article to understand the feastday's customs in England, some of which can be seen in the current celebration of Halloween).

How a pious custom turned into what we see now with no reference to the religious aspect is what can be said as well of celebrations like Christmas, where in China, for example, it is purely secular and commercial. (Of course one need not go as far as China).

Should Catholics pay attention to what the Pope says about Halloween if he said it?

Of course because he is Papa, Father. I haven't seen any official statement on the matter but given that we are called to escape the corruption of this world, we always ought to be vigilant as regards corrupting influences. The danger of the occult cannot be underestimated or overemphasized.

Endnote

Does the Catholic Church celebrate Halloween?

No she doesn't!

cf. USCCB > Calendar > Roman Liturgical Calendar: October 31, 2014 was Friday of the Thirtieth Week in Ordinary Time, November 1, 2014 Solemnity of All Saints, and November 2, 2014 The Commemoration of All the Faithful Departed (All Souls).

Halloween doesn't feature.

Interesting reads:

Afraid to Celebrate Halloween? Don't Worry, It's Very Christian, Fr. Augustine Thompson | aleteia.
Halloween | Wikipedia.


What is the foundational motivation of Lenten practices? Lent is traditionally described as lasting for 40 days, in commemoration of the 40 days Jesus spent fasting in the desert, according to the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, before beginning his public ministry, during which he endured temptation by Satan. - Wikipedia

I included this Wikipedia quote only because it was easiest and really seems to reflect a near universal consensus on the symbolic purpose of the Lenten season.  Various traditions practice Lent differently and some do not practice at all but the underlying Scriptural basis appears to be agreed upon among those who do.

The three synoptic gospels use 3 different words which carry different degrees of intensity to describe Jesus departing into the wilderness by the Holy Spirit:

  Mat 4:1  Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.

  Mar 1:12  The Spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness.

  Luk 4:1  And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan
  and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness

Two things immediately jump out:  First, Jesus did not go into the wilderness of His own accord but was taken there (led or driven) by the Holy Spirit and, second, He was taken there for the purpose of being tempted (more accurately tested) by the devil.

Since there is unanimity in the Scriptural basis of the practice but differences in the application of the practice I am wondering if there is unanimity in the spiritual, motivational desire.

Are Lenten practitioners attempting to enter into Jesus' experience of having been led or driven by the Holy Spirit into deprivation to be tested by the devil or is it more of a ritual of remembrance?

What are the fundamental motivations of the "Lenten Practices"?

Not all denominations observe Lent! There are a few fundamental motivations for partaking in the Lenten observation.

Preparation spiritually for celebrating the sacred paschal mysteries of Christ’s Passion, Death and Resurrection.
Imitating Our Lord Jesus Christ who gave us the example of how to fast during his temptation in the desert.
It is a time for spiritual renewal, through prayer, fasting, almsgiving and other forms of Lenten practice.

No doubt the most Christians will be in accord with the fact that Lent is a time for preparing ourselves for the great contemplation for paschal mysteries which will be celebrated during Holy Week and Easter Sunday!

  Lent is a solemn religious observance in the Christian liturgical calendar that begins on Ash Wednesday and ends approximately six weeks later, before Easter Sunday. The purpose of Lent is the preparation of the believer for Easter through prayer, doing penance, mortifying the flesh, repentance of sins, almsgiving, and self-denial. This event is observed in the Anglican, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, Methodist, Moravian, Presbyterian, Oriental Orthodox, Reformed, and Roman Catholic Churches. Some Anabaptist and evangelical churches also observe the Lenten season. Lent (Wikipedia)

Although some denominations do not fast, many do such as Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans and so on. The traditional ways to prepare for Easter is through prayer, fasting and almsgiving.

  Prayer: Without prayer, fasting and almsgiving are merely actions we do out of tradition without much meaning. Prayer is our conversation with God. It is through prayer that we find the strength to fast. It is through prayer that we develop a closer, more intimate relationship with God. This relationship makes us so grateful for the blessings he has bestowed upon us, that we eagerly give to those less fortunate than us. The Church, in its wisdom, understands that prayer is essential to any action we Christians may undertake.

  Fasting: Fasting is one of the most ancient actions linked to Lent. Fasting rules have changed through the ages, but throughout Church history fasting has been considered sacred. The prophet Isaiah insists that fasting without changing our behavior is not pleasing to God. Therefore, the goal of fasting is linked with prayer. The pangs of hunger remind us of our hunger for God, and prayer and fasting together brings us to what Lent is about - a deeper conversion.

  Almsgiving: It should be obvious by now, that almsgiving is simply a response by us to God, a response that we have come to through prayer and fasting. It is an expression of our gratitude for all that God has given us, and a realization that in the Body of Christ, it is never just "me and God." Through prayer and fasting we come to a deeper understanding that the needs of all are the responsibility of all in the Body of Christ. Works of charity and the promotion of justice are integral elements of the Christian way of life we began when we were baptized.

  Why are prayer, fasting and almsgiving especially important during Lent?

It should be noted that Lent is not universally observed throughout Christendom.

  In the Anglican churches The Book of Common Prayer prescribes that Lent be observed with fasting. In Lutheran and many other Protestant churches Lent is observed with various services and practices, though Lent is not formally observed in many Evangelical or nondenominational churches. - Lent (Encyclopaedia Britannica)

Christians who strengthen their faith with the three traditional practices of prayer, fasting and almsgiving are truly preparing themselves for the great events of Christ’s Resurrection on Easter Sunday. These are not the only practices Christians do during Lent.

More information may be gleaned from the following articles:

How Prayer, Fasting, and Almsgiving Help Fight Temptation
12 Traditional Catholic Lenten Practices
Lent: A Rookie Anglican Guide
Lutheran Liturgical Practices During Lent


Are the Word and Spirit also called God because the Father isn't made up of parts in accordance with the the doctrine of the Trinity? Do Christians worship the Word and Spirit as God too because the Word and Spirit are inseparable attributes of the Father and because the Father isn't made up of parts? Actually I am just trying to understand the logic followed by the early church fathers in declaring God as a Trinitarian being. The Jews worshiped only the Father as God. The Word and Spirit were declared God later by the followers of Christ.

Yes, Christians worship the Son and the Spirit as well as the Father.

The Son (the Word) and the Spirit are as much God as the Father is. At any given time a given Christian may be focussing on worshipping only one of the Persons of the Trinity, such as singing a song of worship specifically to Jesus, but none of the Persons are excluded from worship.

Whether the Jews worshipped only the Father is a more difficult question, and it's more about semantics than it is about theology. A Christian would say that by worshipping God the Jews were in fact worshipping the whole of God, in all three Persons. Jews would not see it like that, since they would not believe in the existence of God the Son or God the Spirit. But they would say that they are worshipping 'the whole of God', which to a Christian would include the Son and the Spirit.


"Resist not evil" (Matthew 5:39) - What does this mean? not to fight evil? Matthew 5:39:

  But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite
  thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

What does this mean? Not to fight evil? Does it mean one should ignore evil?

It does not mean:

do not fight temptation to sin
do not defend yourself

Look at the context in which the passage is found:

38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Jesus here rejects conventional wisdom to return evil with evil, and to hate one's enemies. Instead, he says we should be humble and love (will the good of) those who do evil to us.
Try the ASV: "resist not him that is evil." In the KJV, "evil" seems to mean "evil actions directed toward you" or "evil in others."


Should a Bible believing Christian be pleased at the death of Osama bin Laden? I'm looking for a Biblical response to this question. And it's not specific to bin Laden but I'm just using him as an example.

I know Jesus said love your enemies. And Paul even showed how this can be a form of revenge.

But I can't help but wonder if a Christian could at least be relieved that the bin Ladens and Hitlers of the world were killed.

In one sense, I don't think we should be "pleased" that he is dead.  God is not "pleased", which should be our ultimate example:

  Ezekiel 33:11 (NIV)

  11  Say to them, ‘As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live.    Turn!    Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, people of Israel?’

However, just because we should not take pleasure in his death, does not mean we cannot be pleased with the net outcome of the situation.  We can be pleased that future lives will be spared.

For example, even though God did not take pleasure in the death of the wicked, he still ordered sentences of death for certain offenses (and he does all that he pleases).  This was for the net benefit of the society.  So, although God did not take take pleasure in the death of the individual, he took pleasure in the protection of the masses.

So while we ought to grieve his individual death, for his sake, we can still be pleased overall for the sake of others.


What is an overview of arguments for and against the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus? What is an overview of arguments for and against the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus? Was Jesus' resurrection a historical fact? What do scholars and historians have to say about all this? Is there consensus among the majority of scholars or is this still a controversial topic?

Simon Greenleaf, one of the principal founders of the Harvard School of Law and author of the 3 volume "A Treatise On The Law of Evidence", which is still considered a classic of American jurisprudence, also wrote a book entitled "An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in Courts of Justice."
In this book he applies U.S. trial court rules to the accounts of the 4 gospel eyewitness accounts and finds them not only acceptable witnesses, but exemplary as pertaining to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
There is far too much to even begin to cut and paste into an answer but a full, free pdf is available many places including here:
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/34989/34989-pdf.pdf


What did the original Christian writings look like during the 1st century CE? It is said (from what I've read), from a few Google searches related to "when was the new testament first written", that the New Testament was written down somewhere between 30CE and 150CE, rough ballpark. Wikipedia says the phrase "New Testament" in Koine Greek (the original Greek dialect it was written in) is pronounced "Ἡ Καινὴ Διαθήκη", which was used "to describe a collection of first and second-century Christian Greek scriptures ... traced back to Tertullian in his work Against Praxeas." By the 4th century, there was a canonical collection of the New Testament texts collected. By the 5th century, a Latin translation of the New Testament was created. These first complete Bibles were written in the Uncial Script.

By my question is what happened between 30CE and 300-400CE? What were all these fragments of Christianity referred to casually as the "New Testament" written in? What sort of punctuation and formatting did they use? Was it all in Koine Greek? Even so, what did it look like is my main question. Was it all written by scribes who used the Uncial style? Or did the scribes have other fonts/typographic styles they used?

The earliest Biblical manuscripts were almost certainly written on papyrus. We know of over 130 Biblical papyri dating from the second to the eighth century. These were written in majuscule case, and I think usually without spaces or much punctuation. They were not written in the uncial script as it was developed only in the fourth century for use on parchment and vellum, not papyrus.


what differentiates virtuous faith from the faith of extremists We all know the biblical passages praising faith, and we have also seen many cases where faith was abused by conmen (or went wrong on its own). What differentiates Christian faith (which seems to imply a belief in things not seen and with no direct witnesses) from the faith of various cults, or of suicidal / murderous individuals who were genuinely persuaded that by killing others they are doing (the same as ours) God's work(think suicide bombers, but also Charles Manson's followers)?

If it's all in the gift that God lovingly gives Christians and withdraws from other groups, then why should society hold suicide bombers accountable for not being the recipients of that gift (and separately why should they not receive the same ticket to heaven as "our" faithful)?

If it's about "crossing the line" and harming others, remember that Abraham fully intended to murder his son, and Moses actually ordered the Levites to murder 3000 israelites for the furtherance of his political power (well, God's power as it is claimed). Who is to say that people who kill abortion doctors haven't received personal instruction from God, or that a mass murdering dictator isn't doing God's work?

There is a very well reasoned, but unfortunately too many-headed question about the meaning of faith which of course received answers that didn't address the full range of topics raised.

Taking an action based on your belief is not the same as acting in faith, if the thing you are placing your faith into has criteria which do specify the requirements for being a true member of that faith.

The Christian faith sets out the criteria which will indicate if the follower is truly faithful. These criteria are set out in the words and example of Jesus and the nature of God as set out in the bible.

The words and actions of Jesus are easier to recognise because they are obvious and require far less understanding that does the nature of God. For example when Jesus says,

  'Love your enemies'

It is hard for me or for any person to interpret that as, 'go and blow up that woman and her child over there'. That is obvious. There are many examples where Jesus demonstrates how we should be operating as followers.

The nature of God explanation is very difficult to explain, but there is a kind of 'knowledge' which can be used to attain the criteria, but as I said it is difficult and I am not sure I can explain very well here but I will try.....

For a while my wife and I had been contemplating how Judas, one of Jesus's original disciples, could spend 3 years in the very presence of God being taught by the greatest person that ever lived in every respect and yet still betray Him and all that had been taught.

How can that happen, to someone in the privileged situation that Judas had found himself in, could I end up the same? These were the questions we posed to ourselves and our pastor.

From what I have read about God and His nature, I have learnt that God is gracious, loving; Ex 34:6

  6 Then the Lord passed by in front of him and proclaimed, “The Lord,
  the Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding
  in lovingkindness and [a]truth;

How can God be compassionate, slow to anger and gracious yet still in the Bible we see many examples where whole cities are wiped out, Jericho, Gomorrah etc?

Well, the fact is God does satisfy all those attributes, but the Bible says He is slow to anger, not without anger. God does give opportunity to individuals and cultures alike, which is why Judas had the greatest opportunity, but Judas also demonstrates human weakness at its very lowest. Judas had the opportunity but he refused it (there are a multitude of theologies about this).

On a cultural level there are examples of God giving opportunity, take Jonah for example, God actually had Jonah swallowed by a sea creature, all because Jonah refused to obey God when he was commanded to preach to the Ninevites, because Jonah knew if he did so the Ninevites would repent. God went to great lengths to provide opportunity for people to turn their hearts back to Him. This message and similar messages serve to point us, mere men, to also afford people the same kindness to give an opportunity to change their heart attitude both in how they treat us and how they treat God.

My point is, when man or entire cultures/nations are confused and have their backs to God, He does not seek to wipe them out, He gives every opportunity, going to the nth degree to give them chance after chance to see the error of their ways. He does not conscript men to kill in His name and even when people knowingly turn their backs on Him, God is still patient until it is their time to answer for their attitude toward Him.

Take this example with the example of Gal 5:22:

  19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: [i]immorality,
  impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife,
  jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, [j]factions, 21
  envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I
  forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice
  such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.22 But the fruit of
  the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness,
  faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there
  is no law.

In verse 21, the ones that choose not to accept these opportunities will have their punishment in that they will by no means inherit the kingdom of God. It does not instruct anyone to seek vengeance on God's behalf.

On another note, why would we need to defend God; He is omnipotent enough to do that Himself, but He exercises great patience before doing so, as He did when He gave Noah time to try and persuade people to join Him on the ark, or when Moses persuaded God not to wipe out the Israelites after they escaped from Egypt. God went to massive lengths to give opportunity to people and ultimately gave His own Son.

Moreover, there are specific commands:

Luke 6:31

  31 [a]Treat others the same way you want [b]them to treat you.

What right do we have in passing judgement by our actions:

Romans 3:23

  23 for all [a]have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

John 3:17

  17 For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but
  that the world might be saved through Him.

Deuteronomy 5:17

  17 ‘You shall not murder.

Romans 12:14-21

  14 Bless those who persecute [m]you; bless and do not curse. 15
  Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep. 16 Be of
  the same mind toward one another; do not be haughty in mind, but
  [n]associate with the lowly. Do not be wise in your own estimation. 17
  Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. [o]Respect what is right in
  the sight of all men. 18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, be
  at peace with all men. 19 Never take your own revenge, beloved, but
  [p]leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is
  Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. 20 “But if your enemy is hungry,
  feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you
  will heap burning coals on his head.” 21 Do not be overcome by evil,
  but overcome evil with good.

"Respect what is right in the sight of ALL men".

Overcome evil with good is the last line I quoted, God gives opportunity, but in the end it is not for us to seek vengeance, for vengeance belongs to God, not man. God promises to repay those who wrong Him, He never asks us to do it for Him.

What makes the difference? One acts purely from their convictions without actually knowing the will of the Father, the other has an understanding of how Jesus would operate in the same situation and chooses to follow the example of Jesus.


Did Jesus really had to be God for the atonement of sin to work? Since only Jesus's nature died in our place (and not his divine nature) as said by some theologians , then how can we be saved by the death of a human, how can the blood of an ordinary human save us?
Or...Did Jesus's divine nature had something to do with our atomnent?

P.S. I am a Christian. I believe in the Trinity. I am just confused on this topic. Please answer with respect. :)

I think what you express in your question is actually a form of the Nestorian heresy. You say that Jesus's "nature" died in our place and not his divine nature. The Nestorian controversy was named after the bishop Nestorius who taught that Mary gave birth to Christ and that Christ was crucified on the cross, and drew a distinction between the person of Christ and the divine nature in such a way as he could say that God's nature did not suffer on the cross and was not given birth to.

This teaching was condemned at the council of Ephesus and stands in opposition to the orthodox position that Jesus Christ is one person with both a divine and human nature and that those natures are united and unmixed in such a way so that Mary is called the Theotokos (birth-giver of God) and that we say God died on the cross for our sins.

This is expressed well in the recantation of Leporius recorded by St. John Cassian in Book 1 Chapter 5 of his work On the Incarnation of the Lord, Against Nestorius:

  Therefore we confess that our Lord and God Jesus Christ the only Son of God, who for His own sake was begotten of the Father before all worlds, when in time He was for our sakes made man of the Holy Ghost and the ever-virgin Mary, was God at His birth; and while we confess the two substances of the flesh and the Word, we always acknowledge with pious belief and faith one and the same Person to be indivisibly God and man; and we say that from the time when He took upon Him flesh all the belonged to God was given to man, as all that belonged to man was joined to God. And in this sense 'the Word was made flesh:' not that He began by any conversion of change to be what He was not, but that by the Divine 'economy' the Word of the Father never left the Father, and yet vouchsafed to become truly man.

So yes certainly. Jesus Christ's divine nature has something to do with our atonement according to the canonical orthodox Christian faith. John Cassian offers many arguments in this work, but I will simply summarize the first one that directly pertains to the atonment. In Book 2 Chapter 4 of the same work St. John quotes Malachi 3:8 for an argument:

  Shall a man pierce his God, for you are piercing me.

The interesting thing here is that most English translations appear to say "rob" and not "pierce". This may have something to do with the fact that the early Christians referred to the Septuagint and not the Hebrew text for the Old Testament; I'm not sure. But anyways, St. John says this is a prophecy of Christ's passion and that it clearly shows God contending with those persecuting him, not simply saying you have killed God's anointed, but that you have killed God himself.

As to how exactly the incarnation and crucifixion save us (it is not only the crucifixion, but the incarnation in its entirety that saves us), the best summary I can think of is this short sentence from St. Gregory of Nazianzus in his work To Cledonius the Priest Against Apollinarius. (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf207.pdf)

  For that which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved.

So you see that it is because the divine nature enters all things pertaining to man (birth, life, work, eating, and death) that it can be transformed for our salvation. This is broader than just the atonement, but encompasses all of human life on earth. This is why the incarnation and nature of Christ were critically important doctrines to the Church and why bishops spent centuries arguing about the correct terminology and teachings about Christ, and sometimes were exiled, killed, or had their tongues cut out for teaching that Jesus Christ was fully man and fully God and truly suffered on the cross. Note that the Nicene creed is very careful to mention that God "suffered".


Where did the claim that "the Bible we have today is unreliable because of retranslation" come from? I've heard many people assert that the Bible we have today is unreliable because of a long chain of translation-of-a-translation. This seems false, because new translations can use ancient manuscripts as their source. What is the origin of this fallacy? Is there any one organization to blame in propagating it?

Here's a link to my basis for the question.

At the risk of being overly pedantic, we need to understand what Pastor Litke means by "reliable" and perhaps what he even means by "the Bible".

The Concise Oxford English Dictionary defines "rely" as (1) "trust fully; have faith in" and (2) "be dependent on".  But these definitions suppose an object:  to trust fully for what?  to depend on for what?  Do we expect, for example, that the Gospel accounts convey the literal meaning of what Jesus is purported to have said, or simply the sense of what he said?  Do we expect that the creation account(s) are scientifically accurate or in some sense allegorical?

In the article you linked, Pastor Litke seems to define "reliability" as the extent to which the true meaning of a particular verse or phrase is conveyed.  Paraphrases, he writes for example, are "less reliable, because you only know what the person doing the paraphrase thought a particular verb or phrase means."  He defines a paraphrase as:

  a less literal rendering of the Bible – restating the text to give the
  original sense but not attempting to literally translate each term in
  the original language.

He contrasts "paraphrases" with what he refers to as "translations":

  a rendering of the Bible in a language different than the one in which
  it was written ... intended to be as literal as possible and still be
  easily read

"Translations" of this sort, he maintains, are more "reliable" than paraphrases.

The following is an interesting example to consider in the context of Pastor Litke's argument.

The Greek text (Textus Receptus) of John 5:27-28 reads:

  και εξουσιαν εδωκεν αυτω και κρισιν ποιειν οτι υιος ανθρωπου εστιν μη
  θαυμαζετε τουτο οτι ερχεται ωρα εν η παντες οι εν τοις μνημειοις
  ακουσονται της φωνης αυτου

The 1900 revision to the King James Version reads:

  And [the Father] hath given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man. Marvel not at this

According to Pastor Litke's definition of reliability, this translation is reliable in the sense it conveys the literal meaning of the each phrase:

και εξουσιαν εδωκεν αυτω και κρισιν ποιειν literally means "and authority gave to him also judgment to execute"
οτι υιος ανθρωπου εστιν literally means "because son of man he is"
μη θαυμαζετε τουτο literally means "marvel not at this"

But, since the original manuscripts had no punctuation, these same words can be arranged to form a different set of phrases altogether:

  He hath given Him authority to execute judgment also.  That He is
  the Son of Man, marvel not at this

According to Pastor Litke's criteria, this also would be a "reliable" translation, since it conveys the literal meaning of the underlying phrases.

Theologically, however, there is a great gulf between these two different translations.  The ambiguity in the Greek was understood and addressed in antiquity by Byzantine Church Fathers, but seems to have been lost in most English translations.  Nor is it an ambiguity that can be addressed through a mechanical appeal to dictionaries, concordances and lexicons.  John Chrysostom recognized the pitfall in reading the verse incorrectly and highlit the problem in his 39th Homily on the Gospel According to John:

  That He is the Son of Man, marvel not at this

  Paul of Samosata rendereth it not so; but how? “Hath given Him
  authority to execute judgment, ‘because’ He is the Son of Man.” Now
  the passage thus read is inconsequent, for He did not receive judgment
  “because” He was man, (since then what hindered all men from being
  judges,) but because He is the Son of that Ineffable Essence,
  therefore is He Judge. So we must read, “That He is the Son of Man,
  marvel not at this.” For when what He said seemed to the hearers
  inconsistent, and they deemed Him nothing more than mere man, while
  His words were greater than suited man, yea, or even angel, and were
  proper to God only, to solve this objection He addeth,

  Marvel not [that He is the Son of Man] for the hour is coming in the which they that are in the tombs shall hear His voice and shall go
  forth, they that have done good to the resurrection of life, and they
  that have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.

As a result, I would say that Pastor Litke is correct in his assertion that the King James Version and the other translations he cites are "reliable", but only in the narrow sense he suggests.

There is also a somewhat insipid issue regarding what "the Bible" actually is.  Why, for example, is the Gospel according to John in any of the versions that Pastor Litke cites in the first place?  If a particular version of the Bible contains a faithful translation of the Shepherd of Hermas, would that particular Bible be considered "reliable"?  Hermas was included, after all, in the Codex Sinaiticus, which is considered by scholars to be one of the most reliable manuscript sources and is either the oldest or second oldest complete codex we have of the New Testament.

I think the problem with the basis of your question is that Pastor Litke's treatment of Biblical "reliability" is too superficial.  (I am not criticizing your question.  I personally think it is excellent.). The King James (and other) translations of John 5:27-28, are "reliable" in Pastor Litke's understanding, but convey a teaching (of Paul of Samasota) that was considered heretical by the Church in its 3rd century of existence (and is still considered heretical within the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches at least).  The Bible versions he lists exclude some books that were initially considered but later rejected by the Church for inclusion (e.g. Hermas) and exclude others that were prescribed for inclusion by the Church canons, but later excluded by reformers (e.g. some of the Deuterocanonical books).  Pastor Litke's framework for "reliability" doesn't accommodate differences of canon at all.


What is the Biblical argument used by Evangelical Christians against the Catholic doctrine of the invocation of the saints? The Catholic Church holds to the doctrine of Intercession of the Saints. As I understand it, this refers to the saints in heaven praying for us saints on earth.However, Catholicism teaches that we need to ask the saints in heaven for their prayer. This is the doctrine of the Invocation of the Saints.

  The Catholic doctrine of intercession and invocation is set
  forth by the Council of Trent, which teaches that "...the saints who
  reign together with Christ offer up their own prayers to God for men.
  It is good and useful suppliantly to invoke them, and to have recourse
  to their prayers, aid, and help for obtaining benefits from God,
  through His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, Who alone is our Redeemer and
  Saviour."(source)

Evangelical Christians generally reject this doctrine. So, what is the specific biblical argument they use to oppose the Catholic doctrine of the invocation of the saints?

There are two main Protestant arguments against asking the deceased saints to intercede for us:

It is seen as contradicting the Bible's prohibition on contacting the dead. These are found most clearly in the Jewish Law, which is not binding on Christians, but is still considered to be solid wisdom in this case.

  Do not turn to mediums or seek out spiritists, for you will be defiled by them. I am the Lord your God. (Leviticus 19:31, NIV)

  Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. (Deuteronomy 8:10-11)

It is thought that asking the saints to intercede for us is at best a waste of time, and at worst idolatrous, because Jesus is the best and perfect mediator, and no human can remotely compare to him. And while not all who do believe in the intercession of the saints think this way, there are many people who think that we are too sinful, too unworthy to directly approach Jesus in prayer, and for our requests to be heard we must go through Mary or the saints. Evangelical Protestants would consider this to be a gross distortion of the gospel.

  For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus (2 Timothy 4:5)

  Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them. (Hebrews 7:23-25)

This argument may not be very strong, because Protestants don't hesitate to ask living Christians to pray for them, but it's still an argument that gets made.
A third, more minor, argument is an argument from silence: this practice is not recognised as being taught or performed anywhere in the Bible.

This position ultimately arises from a different understanding of the Communion of Saints in Protestantism. Protestants would not deny the real union of living believers (the church militant) nor the union of believers who have passed away (the church triumphant), but they would generally not say that there is a functional union between those groups. We are united in our shared salvation state, our faith, our creed, our shared indwelling of the Spirit, our hope, and our inheritance, but we are not united with the dead in any relational capacity. There is much disagreement within Protestantism over the nature of the Intermediate State between death and resurrection, and many believe in soul sleep, that the dead are unconscious until the time of their resurrection. Others may believe that they are conscious, but that they do not have the means to hear our invocations and prayers.


How do Jehovah's Witnesses pay obeisance to Jesus in their daily lives? I would like to know how Jehovah's Witnesses pay obeisance to Jesus Christ in their daily lives. Do they use expressions such as “To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!” (Rev. 5:14)? How often, when and where do they commonly pay obeisance to Jesus?

Every prayer is offered through the name of Jesus.
Forgiveness of sins asked for through the merits of Jesus ‘  sacrificial death.
Expression such as “in the name of our reigning King and redeemer Jesus Christ we pray...,”.  “Our Lord and Savior Jesus”.  Are common in daily life.
These can be seen as acts of obeisance.


Why is the day before Ash Wednesday sometimes called Pancake Tuesday? Everyone loves pancakes, but can anyone explain to me why or when this started? Please do not tell me it is because people like pancakes so much!

As I stated in an answer to a related question, historically it has been the case that during Lent, and perhaps during some other times, required abstinence from meat has included not only abstinence from meat products but also abstinence from any animal products, including dairy, fat, and eggs.

Thus, it has historically been the case that between Ash Wednesday and Easter Sunday, Catholics (which in medieval times included most of Europe) could not eat any of these substances during Lent. Since food preservation, especially of these types of substances, was largely ineffective, there had to be a way to consume them before Lent so that they did not spoil. Pancake Tuesday (which may have had its origin in non-Christian European observations) was an effective way to do just that, since pancakes require butter, eggs, and sometimes milk to make.