Does the Catholic Church teach that it has the authority to change what is morally right and wrong? I know this will be controversial, so I'm going to ask for answers to remember that the scope of this question is not "Do they have the authority to change what is morally right or wrong", it's "does the Church TEACH that it has that authority?".

This is prompted by this article, which states:

  Pope Francis realises that a number of the Church's strict teachings
  are at odds with the lives lived by many of the faithful in the
  developed world.

  'There's a strong sense in which on this whole question of sexuality,
  marriage and family, the Church stands out against contemporary mores
  – and some people don't like to live in that tension,' Austen
  Ivereigh, a Catholic journalist and author of an upcoming book on Pope
  Francis, called The Great Reformer tells the Financial Times. 'But
  what conservative cardinals are saying is that if you concede ground
  on this, you are conceding to the culture, and that it is a slippery
  slope.'

  Cardinal Walter Kasper of Germany, a close ally of the Pope, has
  proposed allowing the divorced and remarried to take Holy Communion,
  something presently banned in the Church.

  The Church does not recognise divorces dispensed by civil courts and
  thus regards people who have remarried as adulterers.

  However, conservative Catholic officials are totally opposed to this
  move believing that it is a threat to the principle of the
  'indissolubility' of marriage. U.S. Cardinal Raymond Burke, Cardinal
  Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura,
  Australia's Cardinal George Pell, the current Prefect of the
  Secretariat for the Economy and Germany's Cardinal Gerhard Muller, the
  Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, are all
  opposed to any change in who can take Communion.

"'indissolubility' of marriage" seems to be a moral central doctrinal principle.

The Catholic Church teaches that God is immutable.

So, the logic follows, if God never changes, it seems to follow that what God sees as right or wrong would never change, so is there a doctrine that allows the Church to say that something that's currently considered "wrong" at one point in time can be considered "right" at another?

As regards God's Laws, NO! as regards her laws, YES!

In each generation, the Church receives from the previous generation, preserves it intact, and passes onto the next generation depositum fidei1, the Sacred deposit of the faith that consists of Sacred Scripture and Holy Tradition, entrusted to her by the Apostles to whom Jesus said in Matt 28:18-20:

  18 [...] “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
  19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in
  the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20
  teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am
  with you always, to the close of the age.”

Can the Church err in what she teaches?
The Church cannot err in what she teaches as to faith or morals, for she is our infallible guide in both.2

1. cf. CCC 84 and APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION FIDEI DEPOSITUM | Pope St. John Paul II [the Great].
2. cf. Article 9 of Apostle's Creed | PENNY CATECHISM, 100.

Thus as regards teaching faith and morals, the Church teaches that she cannot err, and she cannot err because with the charism of infallibility Christ endowed her with, her mandate is to receive in each generation, the deposit of faith she received from the Apostles, keep it intact in that generation, teach it without error, and pass it on intact to the next generation.

The Unity and Indissolubility of Marriage and Worthy Reception of the Sacraments belong to this deposit of faith.

As part of the morals for a Catholic is that they are bound to obey the Church, because Christ has said to the pastors of the Church: 'Anyone who listens to you, listens to me: anyone who rejects you rejects me'. [Lk 10:16] One of the commandments of the Church is to keep Sundays and Holy days of Obligation holy, by hearing Mass and resting from servile works.3 What constitutes a Holy day of Obligation can change, the day of its keeping can move, and also it may not even be the same from country to country.

3. cf. Precepts of the Church | PENNY CATECHISM, 228 and 229 (1.).

Please note only the person who makes a law can change it, dispense with it, determine and adjust the penalty for its transgression, etc. no authority lower than they can do it.

Endnote

That doctrine cannot change is even affirmed by Cardinal Kasper. What he wants to do is [reaffirm] Catholic doctrine while offering pastoral overtures.

  Cardinal Kasper’s proposals in favor of communion for
  divorced-and-remarried persons are an illustration of what we blame on
  the Council.  In the talk that he gave to the cardinals during the
  Consistory on February 20th of this year, he proposed doing again what
  was done at the Council, namely:  reaffirming Catholic doctrine while
  offering pastoral overtures.  In his various interviews with
  journalists he harps on this distinction between doctrine and pastoral
  practice.  He says that theoretically doctrine cannot change, but he
  introduces the notion that concretely, in reality, there are some
  situations in which the doctrine cannot be applied.  Then, in his
  opinion, only a pastoral approach is capable of finding solutions… at
  the expense of doctrine. - cf. Interview: SSPX's Fellay Speaks on
  Meeting with Cardinal Müller - Kasper's consistently following Spirit
  of the Council to its logical end | RORATE CÆLI.

Please note Doctrine = teaching.
An example of a lower authority unable to amend a law cf. Pope St. John Paul II [the Great]'s Ordinatio Sacerdotalis - itself a doctrine - "The Church does not consider herself authorized to admit women to priestly ordination." When asked about women ordination Pope Francis remarked that door is closed (because of Pope St. John Paul II). OP's commentary: That door was never open, actually, there was never even a door.
For the Unity and Indissolubility of Marriage cf. CCC 1609 - 1617, CCC 1644 and 1645, and General Audience, Wednesday 5 September 1979 | Pope St. John Paul II.


Does a legal compilation of all laws included in the New Testament exist? Jews compiled Old Testament laws and found 613 commandments. I wonder if the same kind of compilation exists for the New Testament laws.

When a Pharisee asked Jesus which is the greatest commandment in the Law, Jesus said this:

Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.  Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.  The second is this: Love your neighbour as yourself.  There is no commandment greater than these (Mark 12:29-31).

The first quotation is known as the Shema, named after the first word of Deuteronomy 6:4.  To the Shema Jesus joined the commandment from Leviticus 19:18 to show that love for neighbour is a natural and logical development of love for God.
As recorded in Matthew 22:40, all the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.
Jesus went a bit further with regard to the law to love your neighbour as yourself.  He said:

But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who ill-treat you...  Do to others as you would have them do to you...  Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful (Luke 7:27-36).

The Ten Commandments were essentially a summary of the entire Old Testament law.  Nine of the Ten Commandments are clearly repeated in the New Testament (all except the command to observe the Sabbath day). Obviously, if we love God, we will not be worshiping false gods or bowing down before idols.  If we love our neighbours, we will not be murdering them, lying to them, committing adultery against them, or coveting what belongs to them.  The Old Testament law was never intended by God to be the universal law for all people for all of time. We are to love God and love our neighbours. If we obey those two commands faithfully, we will be upholding all that God requires of us.
The answer to your question is that there is no list of New Testament laws.
Note: This view is from a Protestant Christian.


According to the RCC is it allowed to have more then one wife? According to the RCC is it allowed to have more then one wife?

You have several Men living with more the one wife in the bible and you also have the "Let deacons each be the husband of one wife" verse from Timothy.
So there are roles that one should consider only having one wife.

Exodus 21:10:

  If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights.

1 Timothy 3:12:

  Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well.

Isaiah 4:1:

  And seven women shall take hold of one man in that day, saying, "We will eat our own bread and wear our own clothes, only let us be called by your name; take away our reproach."

No, it is not allowed:

Canon  1085 §1. A person bound by the bond of a prior marriage, even if it was not consummated, invalidly attempts marriage.
(Code of Canon Law)

In other words, if you are currently married, you may not marry again. To handle one possible objection, a man may not simultaneously marry multiple women; there are several points both in canon law and in the catechism at which marriage is referred to as being between a man and a woman. Canon 1057, for example, states:

§1. The consent of the parties, legitimately manifested between persons qualified by law, makes marriage; no human power is able to supply this consent.
§2. Matrimonial consent is an act of the will by which a man and a woman mutually give and accept each other through an irrevocable covenant in order to establish marriage.
(emphasis added)

In other words, what makes a marriage a marriage is the consent given between the parties; and this consent can be given only between one man and one woman.
There are indeed several situations such as you describe in the Old Testament; however, it doesn't follow in general that such situations are still acceptable under the New Covenant. Indeed, it isn't clear that even in the Judaism of Jesus' time it was considered acceptable—for example, in his famous discussion about marriage with the Sadducees, both sides appeared to take it as given that the husband would only have one wife at a time.


Why do some Catholics file up for commmunion? My wife was telling me about how in Spain, it's common practice to just go up to receive communion pretty much at random whereas in my experience I've always filed up (even when I was in Germany for World Youth Day). So I'd imagine some Catholics file up and some go up at random.  Buy what is the reason for filing up, or if that is indeed the more ancient practice (which I somehow doubt it is) what is the reason for going up willy nillly?

I can give you an answer based on my experience.

I live in Rome, I'm Catholic, and I have travelled quite a lot. Every time I travel I search a local catholic mass.

I can tell you with a 99% of certainty that this is a cultural matter, dependinding on the community.

Here in Rome people is more or less ordered and goes in line. In France they have a more complicated 'algorithm': the one who are in the last benches go first, then the line builds up bench by bench from the last to the first.

A convincing example is this one: I went to the masses for holy week in Amsterdam. That is to say 3 masses: Thursday, Friday, Sunday (Saturday there's no mass in the holy week). As Amsterdam is quite multi-cultural, once I went to the local (Dutch) community mass, once to the french speaking community mass, once to the Spanish community mass.

In the dutch version they went in a line starting from last bench. In the french-speaking, mostly were from Africa and went in a line which was randomly formed. In the spanish community mass, people was much more 'unordered' and they crowded in the direction of the priest giving Eucharist.

So, summarizing, It seems really to be a cultural matter.


What does 'ages of ages' mean, specifically? I run into this phrase a lot in the Orthodox church, particularly as part of the longer phrase 'and unto ages of ages'. I understand that, generally, this means 'for a long time'. However, what does it mean specifically? Where did the phrase come from and what is its history? Thanks!

The phrase comes from the Bible. It’s a fairly wooden translation of the Greek idiom εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. Many English translations instead use “forever and ever” or something along those lines, which is more in line with English idiom.

As for precisely where it originated, I haven’t been able to find any uses in classical Greek, though perhaps someone with better searching abilities can help with that.  Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek-English Lexicon (a lexicon including classical Greek) discusses several related idiomatic phrases using a double αἰών with various prepositions. Interestingly, all of the examples given there are within the LXX. 1

Εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων itself appears just once in the Greek translation of Hebrew scriptures,3  in Psalm 83[84]:5[4]2 where it translates really nothing (עוֹד ≈ still or yet), so the idiom appears to be native to Greek. It shows up 18 times in the New Testament (NA-28, including bracketed):

Galatians 1:5, Philippians 4:20, 1 Timothy 1:17, 2 Timothy 4:18
Hebrews 13:21
1 Peter 4:11
Revelation 1:6, 1:18, 4:9, 4:10, 5:13, 7:12, 10:6, 11:15, 15:7, 19:3, 20:10, 22:5

All of the examples from the epistles are contained within a doxology, a fitting term because all of them ascribe δόξα (doxa ≈ “glory") to one or more persons of the Godhead, with the basic structure: ᾧ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων (“to whom be the glory forever and ever”).

The phrase appears to have been pulled from these Biblical doxologies into Orthodox Liturgies. You’ll also run across the Latin version of the same: in saecula saeculorum.

1. Koine Greek witnessed increased laxity in the meaning of prepositions and tended to add them in where classical Greek found the naked cases sufficient, so it’s not especially surprising that the development would go in this direction.

2. Numbering is according to LXX with English in brackets.

3. And once additionally in the Greek 4 Macc 18:4.


Absent the original golden plates, which translation of the Book of Mormon is considered to be the "official" version? I'm curious what version of the book of Mormon is considered the official version? For example, when translating the book of Mormon into other languages, what is used as the "base text"? Presumably if we had access to the original golden plates the translators would use those, but seeing as they are lost, some other version has to be regarded as "the most authentic". Which is it?

The latest edition of the Book of Mormon can be considered the official version. When translating the Book of Mormon into another language:

  The two or three people who are selected as translators team up with others in doing the work. They have Church headquarters supervisors, local reviewers, a lexicon for reference,6 translation guides, computer programs, and ecclesiastical support that extends all the way to the First Presidency. ... This doesn’t mean that a translation is perfect when first completed. Often, time and further reviews by those studying the scriptures suggest improvements in grammar and vocabulary or find typesetting or spelling mistakes. Rarely, changes are made in the explication of doctrine. When these are made, they are made under the guidance of the First Presidency.

See the articles Scripture Translation into the Language of the Heart or Every Man in His Own Language for further details on the translation process.

6 The lexicon defines every word in the English scriptures so translators can better understand the meaning of the words. Often, words have more than one meaning, so translators must depend on context, inspiration, and teamwork to identify the right solution. Occasionally, questions about meaning are resolved only by the First Presidency.


Does the Old Testament foretell the time in history in which the Messiah would come (the first time)? I understand that the Old Testament prophecies many different things about the Messiah who was to come, including the virgin birth, His suffering, His resurrection, etc.

However, is there anything in the Old Testament that indicates the time in history in which He would come, or is it just "some time in the future"?

Yes. Daniel, who wrote during the Babylonian Empire prophesied that Messiah would come after four succesive Kingdoms. One which had already existed, the Babylonian, would be taken over by the Persian, then the Persian taken over by the Greek. The Greek then taken over by the Roman, then Messiah overthrowing the Roman. This is not just a Christian re-interpretation but an actual Jewish expectation that Messiah would overturn the Roman Empire.  Of course the common Jewish expectation was that Messiah would lead by sword, not by conversion to an 'invisible' kingdom, but nevertheless, both traditional Jewish and Christian interpretation of Daniel Chapter 7 puts Messiah after the formation of the Roman Empire.

A wiki article on the four beasts of Daniel has it right:

  The following interpretation is a traditional view of Jewish and Christian Historicists, Futurists, Dispensationalists, Partial Preterists, and other futuristic Jewish and Christian hybrids, as well as certain Messianic Jews, who typically believe that the kingdoms in Daniel (with variations) are:

Neo-Babylonian Empire
Medo-Persian Empire
Macedonian Empire of
Alexander and his successors to the Ptolomaic and Seleucid Empires
together, and
Roman Empire, with other implications to come later.

This was the scheme described by Jerome in his Commentary on Daniel.[7] Within this framework there are numerous variations.

Yet this is not all. Many respectable theologians believe that Daniel was more particular in foretelling the time of the coming of Christ than ever any prophet had been before. In Daniel 9 of his prophecy, it is foretold that it should be '70 weeks', i.e. 70 weeks of years, or 70 times 7 years, or 490 years, from the decree to rebuild and restore the state of the Jews till the Messiah should be crucified. There is much calculation by various people to argue that this was the very year that Christ died dated from the commission granted to Ezra by Artaxerxes in Ezra 7. Naturally this is fairly complicated to prove and there would be much debate about the details.

However this exactness to the precise year does not appear to have provided any Rabbinic traditions to expect Messiah at the time of Christ exactly, rather according to the Jewish historian Alfred Edersheim there was many guesses from around 4000 years after the Creation to around 729 A.D. based on an extended view of a five monarchy prediction where after Rome somehow Ishmael was added without any scriptural warrant. Yet even in this confusion and speculation some interesting Rabbinic opinions can be found concerning Daniel. First around the time of Messiah as predicted by Daniel some thought that the second temple would be destroyed which is surprisingly accurate considering.

  Dan. 9:24. In (The Talmudic Tractate Nazir, on the Nasirate. 32 b) it is noted that this referred to the time when the second Temple was to be destroyed. So also in Yalkut vol. ii. p. 79 d, lines 16 &c. from the bottom. (Edersheim, A. (1896). Vol. 2: The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (P734)

Second, a kind of disappearance and reappearance of Messiah was thought of. Although not seen as 3 days in the grave a 45 day disappearance is again a pretty good guess:

  Dan. 12:11, 12. These two verses receive a peculiar Messianic interpretation, and that by the authority of the Rabbis. For it is argued that, as Moses, the first Redeemer, appeared, and was withdrawn for a time, and then reappeared, so would the second Redeemer; and the interval between His disappearance and reappearance is calculated at 45 days, arrived at by deducting the 1,290 days of the cessation of the sacrifice (Dan. 12:11) from the 1,335 days of Dan. 12:12 (Midr. on Ruth 2:14, ed. Warsh. p. 43 b). (Edersheim, A. (1896). Vol. 2: The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (P734).

These predictions are all quite remarkable and they shows us how precise and speculative those were who pondered them, yet somehwat accurate still. Also it should give us pause to consider how miraculous that these prophecies did predict events which arguably occured. Of course after the fact we are able to see the predictions more clearly but that is partly the purpose of prophecy, to prove that events which have occurred were clearly predicted by an omniscient God.


Does Christianity or the Bible forbid polygamy and widow remarriage? I've seen people advocate widow celibate for the reason of a happy reunion of the marriage bond in Heaven. As I understand it, this appeal is based on the rejection of polygamy, which is based on the rejection of lustful feelings towards a woman outside the marriage which is considered a lechery.

According to a Czech master's thesis I've read, Christianity has surmounted polygamy as Jesus establishes the equality of man and woman: "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:28

However, I don't consider this a sufficient basis. So what does Christianity base the rejection of polygamy and widow remmariage base upon? Thank you!

Christianity forbids polygamy but allows widow remarriage.

I agree with you that Gal 3:28 is not usually cited as support for the rejection of polygamy, because the passage context is about unity of Gentiles and Jews in Christ (notice the contrasts of social groups in the verse).  Ken Graham already covered the OT view of polygamy, so I will not repeat it here.  Ken also covered how the criteria of elder's marriage shed light on monogamy, so I will not repeat it here either.

The NT support for rejection of polygamy is based on what Jesus said in Matt 19:3-9 as the original intent of marriage before the Fall.  I think in general Christianity agrees that marriage is to be a symbol of God's covenant between Jesus the bridegroom and The Church the bride, prefigured in the covenant between God and Israel.  Read the whole book of Hosea which revealed the exclusive love that God demanded from Israel as a proper response to God's exclusive love for Israel, His chosen people.  Hosea is a very touching book of how God STILL wanted Israel to come back to Him, even after Israel did "polygamy" and "adultery" by simultaneously worshiping other gods.  The theme of monogamous relationship continued on to the NT period where there is only one Church and one Jesus.  So it makes sense that the covenantal relation between husband and wife should be modeled after the relation between Jesus and The Church (see Eph 5:21-33)

This booklet on The Bible's Teaching on Marriage and Family (pdf here) is an excellent, easy-to-read, theological exposition on why Christianity espouses monogamy as well as the purpose of Christian marriage and how Satan wants to destroy it.  The booklet contrasts between the secular notion of marriage as contract versus Christian notion of marriage as covenant.

On the other hand, NT teaching on widow remarriage is more on a prudential basis, far less dogmatic than the teaching on monogamy.  The main relevant passages are embedded on Paul's recommendation to the churches he founded in Corinth (1 Cor 7 esp. vv 39-40) and Ephesus (1 Tim 5:11-16) so that the members of the church can grow toward holiness (you can get this sense from the circumstances which precipitated the 2 letters).  Thus, Paul's advice on widow remarriage is to prevent distractions, temptations, and sins from polluting the local church body (example: like bad yeast in 1 Cor 5).  Notice the overall context of the passages: the importance for a man and a woman to channel their desires into wholesome patterns instead of into deviant ways that the enemy (Satan) can use.  This is because one theme of the overall teaching of Paul is the importance of holiness so Christians can enter the Kingdom of God (i.e. receive their promised inheritance) on the Day of Judgment (see 1 Cor 6:9-11, Gal 5:19-21, Eph 5:1-5).

See also a gotquestions.org article on What does the Bible say about remarriage after the death of your spouse? commenting on the same NT passages plus some OT background, saying that widow remarriage is "absolutely allowed by God".

The care of older widows (1 Tim 5:16) who cannot provide for themselves was a carryover from the OT ethic for helping the weak, which became the basis of why God condemn the powerful Jerusalem elite who instead of using their power to protect the weak they use it to oppress "the widows and the orphans".  So Paul's teaching about widow remarriage should also be read in the immediate context of how the local church should choose which widows to support.

In modern North America (USA, Canada) and Western Europe, the situation has much changed since the NT period since:

women now have equal rights and opportunities to pursue their career
there is not much social stigma to single career women
there is nursing facility and social security payments for older widows
household arrangement is more nuclear than extended, so less "temptation" from busy-body younger widows living in the same household

Therefore, the churches have a lot less responsibility to care for widows than in Paul's period so this impacts the prudential judgment about whether widows should or should not remarry.  But there is still a lot that we can do today.  This scholarly article titled The Order of Widows: What the Early Church Can Teach Us about Older Women and Health Care describes the practice of the early church in light of Paul's teaching in 1 Timothy as well as the OT practices mentioned above as a background to what we can do today to help modern elderly women.

The NT is rather silent on the reunion of the marriage bond in heaven.
Two frequently cited NT passages on marriage in heaven are Luke 20:34-36 and Mark 12:18-27 with sample interpretations in Why is there no marriage in heaven? and Marriage in Heaven? Will We Know and Love Our Spouses in Heaven? respectively.


What is Protestant Scholasticism? I read a tag line advocating Lutheran Theologian Dr. Jack Kilcrease offering a class on "Protestant Scholasticism", which I had never heard of before. This seems odd to me because of Luther's rejection of the Aristotelian scholastics. So what is Protestant Scholasticism?

The Reformed and Lutheran theologians of the late 16th and 17th centuries are often termed "Protestant Scholastics."

Why?

Because they took over the methodology of the Medieval Scholastics and produced vast systematic theologies. Concordia Publishing House is currently publishing one example of this, Johann Gerhard's 16 volume systematic theology.

The Protestant Reformation didn't think the earlier western Catholic tradition got everything wrong: just the doctrine of justification, sacraments, and Church. Everything else was pretty good. Hence, the second generation of Protestant theologians wrote theologies not only to defend the Reformers' doctrinal proposals, but also to integrate the insights of the Reformers with the larger doctrinal and methodological concerns of the western Catholic tradition.


According to the Protestant denominations that hold to the doctrine of clarity of scripture, is trinitarianism clear? The doctrine of the clarity of Scripture (often called the perspicuity of Scripture) is a Protestant Christian position teaching that

"...those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and
observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some
place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the
unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a
sufficient understanding of them". Westminster Confession of Faith

According to denominations which hold to the doctrine of the clarity of scripture, is trinitarianism something which is necessary to be known and believed for salvation, and therefore clearly propounded and opened such that not only the learned, but the unlearned may attain to a sufficient understanding of them?

The section of the Westminster Confession you have quoted, Chapter I, section VII, explains how there is no limiting factor within the scripture, regarding those things necessary for salvation, which gives advantage to the learned over the unlearned.
Just prior to that Chapter 1 Section VI reads (in part):

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.(m) Nevertheless we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word

And again in Section X:

The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined; and in whose sentence we are to rest; can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.

In short the spiritual truths necessarily relating to our salvation are spiritual truths recorded in a physical media and are thus to be discerned in both ways.  The natural man cannot, by nature alone, apprehend the things of the Spirit:

Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual. The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. - 1 Cor 2:12-14

For one example, Peter confessed Jesus to be the Son of the Living God and Jesus declared that Peter did not come by that knowledge through flesh and blood.  Another example is Nicodemus' complete ignorance regarding the new birth even though he was 'the' teacher of Israel.
Trinitarian belief is necessary for salvation (according to Trinitarians) for two major reasons outlined in the confession:

Chapter VII, section 1 - The gulf between Holy God and creature is so unbridgeable and immense to man that reconciliation must be an act of God:

The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although
reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto Him as their Creator, yet
they could never have any fruition of Him as their blessedness and
reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God’s part, which He
hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.

Chapter VIII, section II - Jesus Christ is that voluntary condescension of God, taking upon Himself the nature of a created being to accomplish as a man and for mankind, what man is utterly incapable of doing:

The Son of God, the second person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance and equal with the Father, did, when the fulness of time was come, take upon Him man’s nature, with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin: being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the virgin Mary, of her substance. So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion. Which person is very God, and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man.

The Holy Spirit is said to be eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son in Chapter II, section III:

In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding: the Son is eternally begotten of the Father: the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.

This is that Spirit that searches all things, even the deep things of God; who has been sent into the world to convince the world of sin and of righteousness and of judgement; severally referred to as the Spirit of God, the Spirit from God, the Spirit of Truth, and the Spirit of Christ and who dwelt in the flesh of Jesus without measure.  This same Spirit was present and active in creation, inspired and illuminates Scripture to human hearts, regenerates and adopts the lost, lives and strives within the redeemed to produce conformity to Christ, and guarantees the inheritance.  It is the same eternal Spirit by which Christ offered Himself without blemish to God on our behalf and who Jesus promised to send to be with us and in us forever.
Simply put Trinitarians are convinced from Scripture by natural apprehension and spiritual illumination of what is written that a Jesus who is not the only begotten Son of God, the Logos who was God in the beginning and never ceased to be God during the incarnation, is not capable of providing salvation to all mankind because the chasm between God and Man is uncrossable to Man.  Therefore trinitarian belief is considered necessary for salvation because a merely human Jesus cannot save and man, unaided by the Holy Spirit, cannot apprehend salvation.
This is not to say that full doctrinal understanding is necessary in advance.  Indeed, all (in whatever condition they currently exist) who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved.  Following the new birth, however, the Holy Spirit will never illuminate scripture and enable understanding of that which is untrue.  A saved individual, then, who from a sincere heart desires to grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ can reasonably expect, over time through prayer, study, and a heart of obedience, to increase in apprehension of the Triune God.


What's the Eastern Orthodox view on Roman Catholic notion of sanctifying grace? In Roman Catholic Church there is a doctrine that says that salvation is achieved by sanctifying grace.

Maybe I do not understand this doctrine enough but practically it I think it means that after valid confession one receives the state of sanctifying grace, and if he dies in that state, he is saved. If after confession one commits mortal sin, then he is in danger of going to hell.

I am interested in how Eastern Orthodoxy approaches these issues.

The Eastern Orthodox understanding of grace is radically different from that of Roman Catholicism.

Firstly, Roman Catholic theology maintains that grace is something that is created.  The Catholic Encyclopedia states:

  [Grace] is not a substance that exists by itself, or apart from the
  soul; therefore it is a physical accident inhering in the soul (1911
  ed., vol. 6, p. 705)

It furthmore states:

  Sanctifying grace may be philosophically termed a 'permanent,
  supernatural quality of the soul' (ibid.)

In contrast, Orthodox theology maintains:

  Grace is the Uncreated Energy of God Himself, which at the time of
  man’s creation was intimately connected with his soul. Man
  participated in the Divine life through the Divine Energy, and this
  participation was proper to the original nature of man.

  Hieromonk Damascene, note in Orthodox Dogmatic Theology (3rd ed.), by Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky,
   p. 166.

Orthodox theologian Vladimir Lossky further explains the difference in understanding in his book, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church:

  That which western theology calls by the name of the supernatural
  signifies for the East the uncreated — the divine energies ineffably
  distinct from the essence of God. The difference consists in the fact
  that the western conception of grace implies the idea of causality,
  grace being represented as an effect of the divine Cause, exactly as
  in the act of creation; while for eastern theology there is a natural
  procession, the energies, shining forth eternally from the divine
  essence. It is in creation alone that God acts as cause, in producing
  a new subject called to participate in the divine fullness; preserving
  it, saving it, granting grace to it, and guiding it towards its final
  goal. In the energies He is, He exists, He eternally manifests
  Himself.

  Kindle Locations 1532-1541

This difference in understandings of grace leads to radically different understandings of the nature of sin and salvation in both traditions. As monk Damascene further comments:

  In Roman Catholic teaching original sin consists only in the privation
  of sanctifying grace (also called “original justice”), while the
  nature of man remained the same after the fall as it had been before
  the fall. In this view, the nature of man has not become corrupted;
  rather, the privation of grace in itself constitutes “a stain, a moral
  deformity” (Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 11, p. 314). According to
  Orthodox theology, on the other hand, man’s nature was corrupted at
  the fall, and this corruption caused man to lose the indwelling of
  Grace and deprived him of participation in God. As Vladimir Lossky
  notes, “The deprivation of Grace is not the cause, but rather the
  consequence of the decadence of our nature” (Mystical Theology, p.
  132).

Salvation, in the Orthodox understanding, is a healing of man ("heal" and "save" are the same word in Greek), and involves cooperation of man with God to participate in His grace.  It is not so much a restitution, as a restoration.  Sin is seen not as an act or series of acts that offend God, but rather as a state of being separated from God.  It is interesting to note that the verb form of the Greek word for sin - hamartia - is used in ancient Greek to describe what happens when a warrior misses their target ("misses the mark").  In his commentary on Romans, the late Archbishop Dmitry Royster (a Baptist convert to Orthodoxy) wrote:

  What does "being saved" mean?  From what sins do men need to be saved?
  [Matthew 1:21].  Since sin in the Greek original is hamartia,
  literally "failure" or "missing the mark", we have to conclude that
  man's sin consists fundamentally in his missing the very point of his
  existence (although for some Christians, salvation has been reduced to
  nothing more than escaping the punishment of hell).

  St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans: A Pastoral Commentary, p. 33


Are there any Christian Churches or communities that teach same-sex marriage is a right? On what biblical basis? Are there any Christian Churches or communities that teach same-sex marriage is a right? On what biblical basis do they base their teaching?

A couple of examples will do for an answer.

Community of Christ

Their statement of note:

  The 2013 USA National Conference recommends the sacrament of marriage be extended, where legal in the USA, to persons of the same sex/gender. Thus the 2013 USA National Conference recommends a change to the current policy for the USA on the sacrament of marriage;

And the above recommendation was recently approved.

Here is their basis for it (though not explicitly Biblical):

  We believe this is where God is directing Community of Christ, to be an inclusive body where everyone is welcome source

This Wikipedia page lays it out pretty well which Christian denominations accept same-sex marriage and just how much they accept it. Some denominations just kind of accept a little, while others split over it.


Did the Catholic Church proscribe private ownership and reading of scripture? I have heard that the Catholic Church did not permit private ownership of scripture nor any attempts to read and understand it so that the only copies were the ones possessed by the Church and the only exegesis of the text was done by the Catholic clergy. Private ownership and interpretation then was a Protestant innovation. Is that accurate information? Or have I been misinformed?

If that is correct, when if ever did the Catholic Church official begin permitting private ownership and interpretation of the scriptures?

I suppose one could add translation by anyone other than the Catholic clergy to this question as well.

Laypeople owned Books of the Hours and illuminated manuscripts of Holy Scripture before the printing press. (See the "Manuscript" Catholic Encyclopedia article for the history of manuscripts and copyists.) There was no ecclesiastical prohibition of such ownership.

St. Paula (347-404), a wealthy Roman lady who could thus afford manuscripts, studied Holy Scripture under the direction of St. Jerome and helped fund St. Jerome's Vulgate translation of the entire Bible. Thus, laypeople privately owning Holy Scriptures did exist very early on in the Church's history.

cf. How did the Catholic Church function logistically/liturgically prior to the invention of the printing press?


What is the origin of the Evil Eye in Christianity? My family owns several charms—such as necklaces, bracelets, and small stones—with the Evil Eye symbol on it.

My family is Christian, and if I remember correctly the Evil Eye is of Turkish origin. This would imply that the Evil Eye has Muslim roots.

What could possibly explain why my Christian family owns items of Muslim origin? The artistry of the piece is indeed something that would warrant owning it, but my mom has spoken to me of it religiously, in that it "wards off evil spirits."

The so called "Evil Eye" is a classic example of spiritual syncretism. It's origin is neither Christian nor Muslim — yet the belief system that it stands for has through long proximity been partially assimilated by adherents to both of of those religions.

It goes several names, but for example in Turkey it is usually known as Nazar. It is simply a symbol, usually a concentric pattern of circles in blue and white, that is supposed to ward off evil spirits. The symbol is so universal in Turkey that it is almost impossible to avoid. Even as a Christian with no interest in having them around I am constantly finding the things floating around my house. They are printed on receipts, dropped as tokens into shopping bags and boxes, woven into clothing, left behind by wary guests, and generally come out of the woodwork like dust bunnies.

The Nazar or Evil Eye symbol is actually just the most visible of many Animistic beliefs. The use of this symbol is actually fundamentally incompatible with Islam, but the two beliefs are widely practiced side by side and people are generally unaware of the conflict of interest they pose to each other.

In addition to being incompatible with Islam, belief in the Evil Eye to ward off evil spirits is almost universally seen as incompatible with the core doctrines of Christianity (as are almost all other incarnations of Animism). If some of our trust for safety is placed in something other than Christ, that thing becomes an idol that detracts from our focus on our Savior. The one who is able to protect us from all evil Spirits is the one who Himself triumphed over them:

  Colossians 2:15 (ESV) He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.


Why did God wrestle with Jacob and why did this appearance not become a "big deal"? During a recent small group meeting recently, several questions about the life of Jacob came up:

If God had already chosen Jacob to be blessed, why did God still chose to wrestle with Jacob?  So that he could repent and be able to be blessed?
When Jacob do not want to let go of God until after the "wrestling", asking for a blessing first, did God give in? Did God bless Jacob so that he would let go?
If God showed himself to Jacob, how come it didn't become a "big deal" the way later appearances did? Is there a article/commentary the tackles this question?

When you see how those who knew they were sinners grabbed the gospel from Christ, almost violently pressing in on Him, you see the heart of Jacob. Christ initiates the fight, but sinners will not let Him go. The tax collectors and sinners, whom the scribes and Pharisees thought had  no right to the kingdom, seized the mercy of the Gospel. The self righteous shunned them and the  Devil, Hell, and Sin are all giants that oppose them, but they wrestled against it all until they received the promised Messiah.

If man is not absolutely determined to give up his sins and wrestle to find Christ at every expense, his faith can't be compared to Jacob. Even if the difficulties of our life, when our faith in God's love is tested, we are tempted to shrink back and consider God as hard and cruel. However, like a big Dad wrestling with his young child, to take a toy away and only to give it back with hugs and kisses, we will find after that our struggle with God is always with a God that loves us.

So in Jacob what we really see is the struggle of faith which is nothing less then a struggle with God himself.  Many believe that this angel that Jacob struggled against was the pre-human form of Jesus himself. This view is taken whenever the original Hebrew uses the phrase 'The Angle of the Lord'. See a post on that here.

Now to answer the questions specifically:

1-Why did God still chose to wrestle with Jacob?

He did so to draw Jacobs faith out and to be an example for us all who equally wrestle with God. Jacob's desire for the blessing was really His desire for Christ, for the blessing was that through Abraham a Messiah would be born to crush the head of the serpent and  bless many nations. (Gen 12:3)

2-Did he blessed Jacob so he would just let God go?

God seems to let Jacob overpower Him so that Jacob has confidence in his own strength, but then he touches his thigh like a wrestler twisting his joint out. This would be all the more agonizing to be beaten by someone that seems weaker than you. It is meant to show how intense and intimate the struggle is, and how sweaty and tiring. God finally gives in, whenHe decides the struggle is enough for poor Jacob.

  No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it. (1 Corinthians 10:13)

Notice when Jacob walked away limping, it seemed that he had learned the same thing as the Apostle Paul:

  That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong. (2 Corinthians 12:10)

3-God showed himself to Jacob, how come there it didn't become a big deal? meaning is there any written article the tackles about it even more?

I am sure there are many sermons on this and much to find in commentaries. For a deep read I would suggest Martin Luther's commentary of Genesis, but I am not sure how easy it is to find. A good free source for much of the Bible is Matthew Henry, here.


Did the New World Translation lead to any doctrinal changes? The Jehovah's Witnesses believe that their denomination is a restoration of the original, ancient form of Christianity.  They claim to have rediscovered this form through principled biblical study and scholarship.

The Witnesses have even produced their own Bible translation, the New World Translation (NWT), which they claim more accurately reflects the intention of the original writers.  While this translation has often been criticized for introducing a bias in favour of the denomination's pre-existing doctrines (and particularly for its use of the word "Jehovah" in the New Testament), it has also attracted praise for its scholarly methods and accuracy.

Let's put aside for now the question of whether the pre-existing doctrines of the Jehovah's Witnesses unduly influenced this translation.  I am interested to learn whether the converse is true:  Did the production of the New World Translation influence the doctrines of the Jehovah's Witnesses?  After all, the Witnesses do claim that their beliefs are based on modern, ongoing Biblical scholarship.  Did the NWT's translators claim to have gained any new insights on early Christianity, and if so, did these insights lead the denomination's leaders to change any of its previous interpretations and teachings, or to introduce new ones?

EDIT: The comments and answers so far indicate that there may be some confusion about what I am asking.  So let me provide an example:

The Jehovah's Witnesses once believed and taught that Jesus was put to death on a cross.  However, in the 1930s this doctrine changed due to what they claimed was a re-examination of the original Greek-language texts of the New Testament.  They noted that these texts use the word σταυρός (stauros) to refer to the instrument of execution.  In consulting the available evidence from historical records and from contemporaneous textual usage of the term, they concluded that the word σταυρός, as used in the Bible, refers to a simple stake without a crossbeam.  This interpretation became part of the official teaching: Jehovah's Witnesses now state that Jesus was put to death on a "torture stake".  The take-home message here is that in the 1930s they claimed that their scholars discovered a significant translation error which, when corrected, led to a change in their teachings.

The question is thus whether the Jehovah's Witnesses claim to have discovered and corrected any further major errors or omissions in translation or interpretation during the production of their New World Translation in the 1940s and 1950s.  Did they ever say something to the effect of, "Until now, we Witnesses have mistakenly believed X.  But thanks to the textual and historical evidence that was newly collected and analyzed in the preparation of the NWT, we understand now that we should actually believe Y."?

The difficulty here is ascertaining whether changed doctrines came before the publication of the NWT, or after it. As the people responsible for producing the NWT seem loath to admit to having held to major doctrinal errors except up until around the 1930s, it's hard to say. The language the JW leaders employ is that of Jehovah causing "increased light" so that they are now "clearer" about doctrines than they were decades ago. They seem to believe in "progressive revelation".
However, there is one doctrine that might have developed after the original NWT, for the latest 2013 edition of the NWT translates certain words differently than previously. This has to do with the doctrine of life after death. In their 2013 edition of NWT, they render sheol and hades every time as ‘death’. That the one word 'death' is being used for every reference in the Bible to sheol and hades shows an astonishing attempt to simplify a complex subject, perhaps in the hope that JWs will not think beyond the idea of physical 'death'. It is tied up with the JW teaching that there is no conscious, aware part of a human that survives physical death. If they are wrong about that, you can be sure they are wrong to translate 'death' every time sheol or hades occurs! However, it's possible to examine the problem from the starting point of the JWs own admissions about the various words in the Bible that deal with the state of the dead.
In the JW 'Insight On The Scriptures' book they admit that the Hebrew word for 'grave' is qe'ver: "The Hebrew word qe'ver is the common word used to designate a burial place, a grave, or a graveyard. (Ge 23:7-9; Jer 8:1; 26:23) The related word qevurah' similarly may refer to an earthen grave or to a tomb excavated in rock. - Ge 35:20; 1 Sa 10:2
"In Greek the common word for grave is ta'phos (Mt 28:1), and the verb form (tha'pto) means 'bury'. (Mt 8:21,22)...
"Since these Hebrew and Greek words refer to an individual burial place or grave site, they are often used in the plural as referring to many such graves. They are, therefore, distinct from the Hebrew she'ohl' and its Greek equivalent hai'des... [which words must always be used in the singular.]
"Nevertheless, since one's entry into Sheol is represented as taking place through burial in an individual grave or at a burial site, words pertaining to such places of interment are used as parallel though not equivalent terms with Sheol." (Vol. 1 pages 994-5)
Now, JWs need to ponder that. Why, despite the admission of their leaders that a word completely different to sheol needs to be translated 'grave', are they trying to say that it's just sheol and hades that they have translated as 'grave'? They've just admitted that sheol is not the same as the grave! The grave is but an entrance into sheol! So, if sheol lies beyond the grave, what is it, and where is it, and what is the condition of those who go beyond the grave and end up in sheol?
The JWs have here admitted that the word for 'grave' is NOT an equivalent of the word 'sheol'! Are they trying to hide something important? Do they not want their readers to grasp the Jewish beliefs about the state of the dead, as taught by the rabbinic schools of Hillel and Shammai, which views were prevalent before Jesus, during Jesus' day, and after Jesus' day? It's only when you know what the Jews believed about the eternal part of man ending up in Sheol that Jesus' words in Luke 16:19-31 make sense! Note that the JWs have been told that nothing of what Jesus said there was actual, it was only a story (for everything Jesus said there contradicts what they believe about the state of the dead!)
Does this mean that Rev. 1:18 & 21:13 in the NWT just read 'death' and not 'death and Hades'? And does Rev 6:8 read "the one seated upon it had the name Death. And Death was closely following him"? Surely not?!
Yet it could be that the new 2013 edition of the NWT is a clear move towards supporting a development in their doctrine about life after death, which was not clear in the original NWT but which is now clearly supported by their 2013 edition. Yet I suspect that JWs will say they always believed that idea, in which case the translation came after the doctrine, and not before it.
"The Life And Times of Jesus The Messiah" by Alfred Edersheim (1971) Appendix XIX, On Eternal Punishment, according to the Rabbis and the New Testament" (see vol. II Book V ch. vi) http://www.ccel.org/ccel/e
"Josephus' Discourse to the Greeks Concerning Hades" as in "The Works of Josephus" translated by William Whiston, 1980, page 637  http://www.ccel.org/search/fulltext/Josephus%27%20Discourse%20to%20the%20Greeks%20Concerning%20Hades


How do Protestants deal with pre-Reformation heresies? Have any of the old heresies (i.e. Manichean, Arian, Nestorian, Iconoclasm) been resurrected and repackaged by main-line denominations

-or-

Do Protestants, in general, still accept the pre-reformation doctrine which was formulated specifically to denounce such heresies? (i.e. Hypostatic union, Consubstantiation)?

...I'm pretty sure that heresies and doctrine I mentioned are widely denounced and accepted respectively among Protestants, so I'm not asking about those in particular.

By and large, Protestants follow Chalcedonian formulations in regards to Chalcedonian heresies.

Protestants by and large subscribe to hypostatic union, although our theories of communion vary widely from memorialism to consubstantiation. If you think in terms of the importance of these issues, however, the more "important" the doctrine (i.e. the nature of Christ is more important than the nature of the elements in the Eucharist), the more likely we are to agree.

Analogy to Common Law

The closest analogy would be like what happened in the Americas after we revolted from Great Britain.  The UK had a long, established Common Law for crime, torts, etc...  Those precedents in English Common law are still used in American Courts of Justice today. Why? Because it didn't matter if you had a President or a King - libel was still libel, theft was still theft, and double-parking was still rude.  In the same way, old heresies are still heresies.

To stretch the analogy, however, what constitutes murder is almost identical.  Libel, on the other hand, has far more nuance (and is much harder to prove) in the US than in the UK. Where does defamation become slander? Well, that's when you start getting lawyers involved.

If you ask any Christian outside of an obscure Dutch sect, "Is Jesus God?" You're going to get a yes.  If you ask about Hypostatic Union, any priest or minister will agree.  (And 90% of the people in the pew will say, um, sure, yeah.)

The point is, we agree on a lot.

What defines heresy?

Up until the rise of the Scholastic movement in the 1300s and the proto-reformers like John Wycliffe and Duns Scotus, there really was no such thing as a Protestant (or a Roman Catholic for that matter).  There was simply "the Church."  (I know someone's going to say "but what about the Orthodox?"  They were part of "the Church" too, even if they were in disagreement about who was the head honcho.) Likewise, prior to 787 and the 7th Ecumenical Council, there was no Eastern and Western church - just the "church" (albeit with different Patriarchs).  In regards to theological doctrine, there was (and still is) far more agreement than disagreement.

Look, for example, at the Nicene Creed.  There is a heck of a lot of theology in that creed, and yet with the exception of one syllable at the end of filioque, 97% of the world's Christians can still agree on the entire summary!  Each of the heresies noted by the Council of Chalcedon is a rejection of a tenet of that creed.

As such, most of the heresies as identified by the first seven ecumenical councils are regarded as heresies by modern Protestants as well. They are regarded as heresy by Orthodox and Roman Catholics too.  There is a wide body of mainstream Christianity that really is a definable entity.

If someone tries to say that your salvation is dependent on a godly pastor, a Protestant can yell "Donatism!" as easily as a Catholic.

If someone says that Jesus was strictly God and not man, it doesn't matter if your RCC or Orthodox or Protestant, you can still say "that's Monophysite" and be right.  (Incidently, a lot of Baptists are for all practical purposes Monophysite but don't know it.)

And to anyone who says that Jesus only appeared to be human or only appeared to die on a cross (like, say a Muslim), pretty much any Christian* can say "Docetism!"

Heresy simply means this - a theological position out of step with accepted majority thinking. Back in the days when people were persecuted for being out of step it meant something more, but nowadays, it just means whether or not the doctrine has historically been considered consensus or not.  (Indeed, every heretic believed it was everybody else who was going to hell.)

How I learned to stop worrying and love the heresy bomb

To your original question of "What heresies are in the church today?" well, that's a book.  The former dean of Virginia Theological Seminary once told me, "There are no new heresies, and there are no non-heretics.  Everybody has a heresy, the question is simply which ones."

Trinitarianism and Christology are two classic examples of heresy breeding grounds.  Between modalism and tritheism, monophysitism and monoergism and Nestorianism - there are so many errors on either side that the question isn't if one espouses a heresy, but which one.  In practice, I'm sure I'm a heretic, but I at least can label my heresies :)  The point is to note the error and seek to correct it in one own's theology (or point it out where there is a practical implication in others reasoning) rather than worry about or ignore it.

*Now - does that mean that there are some people who claim to Christian but hold to heresy?

Yup.  Doctrinally speaking, Christians are not pure.  We hold all sorts of mysteries in tension, and as such hold to heresy from time to time.  By the measurement of Chalcedon, some groups are further away than others.  It isn't a opinion, its a demonstrable fact. Historically, that's been the most widely accepted definition of Christianity ever.

Does that mean Chalcedon was 100% correct? That's when you start getting into bar-room philosophy and theological brawls. But if you just want to know what the (mainstream) Christian world calls heresy and what it doesn't, that's the place to start.


What are the massive stables at Megeto? I've listened to this lecture and I can't, however hard I try, decode the sentence:

  Solomon ignored God's wisdom and later in life, he literally broke every one of them except for being a foreigner. He married 700 women. Not smart. Had 300 concubines. He owned enough horses to fill all of the massive stables at Mageto that you can see in Israel today.

Does anyone know about a place in Israel sounding like stables at Magedo?

The speaker would be talking about Megiddo. Archaeologist have found stables which could hold perhaps up to 500 horses. Although some had said that the stables dated from the time of Solomon, Wikipedia says that most now think they are from 150 years later, the time of Ahab.


What does Genesis 3:16 mean? In Genesis 3:16 God says to Eve

  Your desire will be for your husband…

What exactly does that mean?

Before I started to research this Bible verse, I held to the explanation given in the New International Version Study Bible:

NIV Study Bible Note: Her sexual attraction for the man, and his headship over her, will become intimate aspects of her life in which she experiences trouble and anguish rather than unalloyed joy and blessing.

Then I found this comment in the New Living Translation Study Bible:

NLT Study Bible Note: Judgment falls on the woman’s unique role of childbearing and on her relationship with her husband.  “And you will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you (or, and though you will have desire for your husband, he will rule over you): The marriage relationship now included an element of antagonism rather than just security and fulfilment.

Intrigued, I pressed on and found a fuller explanation from the English Standard Version Study Bible:

ESV Study Bible Note: “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”  These words from the Lord indicate that there will be an ongoing struggle between the woman and the man for leadership in the marriage relationship. The leadership role of the husband and the complementary relationship between husband and wife that were ordained by God before the fall have now been deeply damaged and distorted by sin.  This especially takes the form of inordinate desire (on the part of the wife) and domineering rule (on the part of the husband).
The Hebrew term here translated “desire” (teshuqah) is rarely found n the OT. But it appears again in Genesis 4:7, in a statement that closely parallels Genesis 3:16 – that is, where the Lord says to Cain, just before Cain’s murder of his brother, that sin’s “desire is for you” (i.e., to master Cain), and that Cain must “rule over it” (which he immediately fails to do, by murdering his brother).
Similarly, the ongoing result of Adam and Eve’s original sin of rebellion against God will have disastrous consequences for their relationship: (1) Eve will have the sinful “desire” to oppose Adam and to assert leadership over him, reversing God’s plan for Adam’s leadership in marriage.  But (2) Adam will also abandon his God-given, pre-fall role of leading, guarding, and caring for his wife, replacing this with his own sinful, distorted desire to “rule” over Eve.  Thus one of the most tragic results of Adam and Eve’s rebellion against God is an ongoing, damaging conflict between husband and wife in marriage, driven by the sinful behaviour of both in rebellion against their respective God-given roles and responsibilities in marriage.

And there I was, thinking that sexual desire was down to hormones.  Seems there is more to these few Hebrew words than meets the eye.
P.S. The reason four people have voted to close your question may be because you have not specified which Christian denomination you want answers from. When you have a moment, please take the Christianity Stack tour to learn more about us:  https://christianity.stackexchange.com/tour  This is how we are different to other sites: How we are different than other sites
Hope that helps!


Is the USA mentioned in the Bible? I've dug up at least one reference that may be a candidate.

Jeremiah 6:21-23

  Therefore thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will lay stumblingblocks before this people, and the fathers and the sons together shall fall upon them; the neighbour and his friend shall perish. Thus saith the Lord, Behold, a people cometh from the north country, and a great nation shall be raised from the sides of the earth. They shall lay hold on bow and spear; they are cruel, and have no mercy; their voice roareth like the sea; and they ride upon horses, set in array as men for war against thee, O daughter of Zion.

I've heard some say this verse is talking about the nation of Russia rising against Israel, and that the 'great nation' that is 'raised from the sides of the earth' is a allusion to the United States.

Are there any other verses that people have cited as evidence the USA is mentioned in the Bible?
Is there anyone (denominations/prominent individuals) who believes that the USA is mentioned in the Bible?
What are the arguments for or against this reference (or any other)?

The passage is most likely referring to the nation of Babylon.

Per ESV Study Bible Note:

  Jer. 6:22–23 great nation. Babylon. the farthest parts of the earth. Babylon’s army had outposts all over the ancient world. This army has no mercy; its horses are so numerous that their thundering hoofs sound like the roaring sea (4:13, 29).


Why are psalms in the bible printed with funny spacing? What is the significance of the awkward spacing (on the right below) when songs are printed in the bible? Is this spacing in the original scripts, or is it assumed by the translator somehow?

What is the significance of the awkward spacing (on the right below) when songs are printed in the bible?

First, to state the obvious: the translators have determined that this represents poetry. Within the domain of poetry, the "awkward spacing" you ask about has a technical name: stichometric division. Unfortunately, neither what constitutes poetry nor how the lines ("stiches") should be divided are necessarily straightforward decisions.

Manuscript evidence

As noted in another answer, the oldest manuscripts available to us make no indication of the boundary between prose and poetry. The oldest available manuscript widely regarded as containing poetic elements is the famous Great Isaiah Scroll from among the Qumran documents (a.k.a. Dead Sea Scrolls), dated to the 2nd - 4th C. BCE. At the link, start at the right and hover over the lines for information about correspondence to modern versification. Then open any modern translation and note that the boundaries between poetry and prose (e.g. 1:1-2; 3:17-18; 3:26-4:1, etc.) are not marked in the Scroll.

Is it poetry?

The fact that the line between poetry and prose is not always obvious is evidenced in many places in translations of the Hebrew Bible. For instance, compare Isaiah 4:2-6 is viewed in some translations as poetry and in others as prose, as seen at the link.

Some characteristics are shared between English and Hebrew poetry and thus may seem intuitive to the English reader. These include:

terse expression
freedom of word order, and
the absence of typical prose particles.1

On the other hand, rhyme, a typical feature of English poetry, is rarely present in Hebrew poetry. Finally, two features of Hebrew poetry have been the source of much debate: parallelism and meter. More on these below.

How to divide the lines?

This is also frequently less-than-obvious. Compare Isaiah 5:7 in the NRSV, GNB, and NAB:

  For the vineyard of the LORD of hosts
       is the house of Israel.

  Israel is the vineyard of the
       LORD Almighty.

  The vineyard of the LORD of
       hosts is the house of Israel.

This is an unusual degree of disagreement among translations. Still, the criteria for dividing the line are surprisingly indistinct. One feature that may be taken into consideration is meter. However, for many years there has been a debate about whether syllables or accents ought to be counted when discerning rhythm and meter. Furthermore, many now agree that meter in the sense it is known in Greek, Latin, and English poetry, is simply not a characteristic of Hebrew poetry.2

On the other hand, various forms of rhythmic regularity continue to be identified, and these often contribute to stichometry. If you open a scholarly commentary on a poetic book, you may see designations like these (Isa. 5:3): 3+2, 3+2. Here the commentator has counted primary accents:

  wĕʿattā yôšēb yĕrûšālayim (3)
  And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem

       wĕʾı̂š yĕhûdāh (2)
       and men of Judah

  šiptû-nāʾ bênı̂ (3)
  judge between me

       ûbên karmı̂ (2)
       and my vineyard

3+2 is sort of a "normal" pattern, so this may be used to justify such line divisions, although whether one counts accents or syllables can alter the conclusions, secondary accents are of indeterminate import, and the whole thing turns out to be very slippery. (Peterson and Richards demonstrate that several other conclusions about the accent structure of this verse are possible. In their opinion, "there are no regular and predictable patterns of rhythm.") Thus, this can only be one factor of several to be considered.

The task is made easier when the proposed metrical scheme lines up with the semantic parallelism. This brings us to another feature that figures into stichometry: parallel relationships. Take a look at Psalm 19:1:

  The heavens declare the glory of God,
               and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.

This verse includes parallelism at both the level of syntax (i.e. grammatical form) and semantics (i.e. meaning). The Hebrew goes subject-verb-object / object-verb-subject, a syntactic chiasm. Semantically, this is a nice example of the first of the three main types of parallelism:

synonymous (second part provides a sort of restatement of the first),
antithetical (second part is the obverse of the first), and
synthetic (a relationship where neither of the above holds).

Whether or not parallelism is a defining feature of Hebrew poetry, and whether meter should be discerned at all continue to be debated among scholars. Regardless, various expressions of parallelism and rhythm (if not strictly meter, see note 2) are important considerations for translators (and, indeed, modern printers of the Hebrew text) when deciding how to divide the lines ("stiches") to aid the reader in understanding the structure of poetry.

Notes

1. The most obvious here is the so-called definite direct object marker, the absence of which has an effect similar to the freedom of word-order: loosening up the syntax.

2. This is the view of Peterson and Richards (below). These authors define rhythm: "a cadence, contour, a figure of periodicity, and sequence perceptible as a distinct pattern capable of repetition and variation". Meter: "more or less regular poetic rhythm..."

References

David L. Petersen and Kent Harold Richards. Interpreting Hebrew Poetry (Fortress Press, 1992). Most of the factual statements regarding scholarly consensus are based on statements in this text, and the Biblical examples given here arise from discussions in that book, except as below.

David J. Reimer, Introduction to the Poetic and Wisdom Literature  in ESV Study Bible, Ed. Wayne Grudem and Lane T. Dennis. (Crossway, 2001): 865-868. The parallelism example and discussion as well as the general features of Hebrew poetry are based on this helpful introduction.


Can I say Jesus' arrival was through conception of the Holy Spirit? I am writing an essay. I wrote an sentence like this, Jesus' arrival was prophesied and, moreover, was through the conception of the Holy Spirit. I am not sure whether it makes sense doctrinal sense according to Protestantism to say Jesus' arrival was through conception. Could anyone tell me?

Matthew 1:18 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

Conception and Birth of Jesus

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.

As for a Catholic perspective, we have no problem declaring that Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. In the Apostles' Creed we profess this very fact:

"I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary."

The Church of England, the United Methodist Church and the Ecumenical version of the English Language Liturgical Consultation all share similar wording in their professions of faith.


What are the steps and permissions required to add more "patronages" to saints? I understand well enough the steps to go through to become a Catholic saint. And my understanding is that saints are "patron saints" of certain aspects of life and those patronages get assigned after the canonization. For example, Marguerite Bays was canonized last year and is listed as the patron saint of the Franciscan tertiaries.

What I'm less clear on is how older saints get assigned "newer" patronages. For example, Saint Isidore of Seville was canonized in 1598 but is the patron saint of the internet, which obviously didn't exist back then. So who gets to start and authorize the process of adding new patronages to saints that already completed canonization?

What are the steps and permissions required to add more “patronages” to saints?

Apart from having a group of faithful that invoke a particular saint for for a particular cause, there are no official rules or norms in order to establish a certain Catholic saint the patron saint of something in particular.

In other words, the faithful remain free to add more “patronages” to particular saints as their own particular devotion, needs or circumstances deem it necessary.

On very, very rare occasions, the Holy See will name someone a patron saint for of certain cause or people. This actually happened to St. Thomas More:

  On 31 October 2000 Pope John Paul II declared More "the heavenly Patron of Statesmen and Politicians". More is the patron of the German Catholic youth organisation Katholische Junge Gemeinde. - Thomas More

As you noted in your question, St. Isidore of Seville, is the patron saint of the internet. This also is one of those very rare circumstances when Rome intervenes in the naming of a patron saint:

  In 1997 Pope John Paul II declared Isidore of Seville the patron saint of the internet. Saint Isidore died in the year 636, long before the first host-to-host ARPANET connection in 1969. But Isidore did try to record everything ever known in an encyclopedia that was ultimately published after his death.

  From The Telegraph:

  Saint Isidore wrote a 20 book opus Etymologies, also known as the Origins, in which he tried to record everything that was known. Published after his death in 636, it was for a thousand years considered the encyclopedia of all human knowledge.

  Written in simple Latin, it was all a man needed in order to have access to everything he wanted to know about the world but never dared to ask, from the 28 types of common noun to the names of women’s outer garments.

  It was a tool by those seeking wisdom much like the internet is used now. - The patron saint of the internet is Isidore of Seville, who tried to record everything ever known

With all this said, there still is the glooming question as to why a particular Catholic saint could become the patron saint of something that did not exist during the saint’s day. Generally speaking, there should be some sort of connection between the two, either on a personal level or on some sort of physical level.

This is what happened in the cases of both St. Thomas More and St. Isidore of Seville. The case of St. Thomas More is obvious! But in the case of St. Isidore of Seville the connection is a little harder to understand.

The Franciscan Media has this to say about this subject:

  An amazingly learned man, he was sometimes called “The Schoolmaster of the Middle Ages” because the encyclopedia he wrote was used as a textbook for nine centuries. He required seminaries to be built in every diocese, wrote a Rule for religious orders, and founded schools that taught every branch of learning. Isidore wrote numerous books, including a dictionary, an encyclopedia, a history of Goths, and a history of the world—beginning with creation! He completed the Mozarabic liturgy, which is still in use in Toledo, Spain. For all these reasons, Isidore has been suggested as patron of the Internet. Several others—including Anthony of Padua—also have been suggested. - Saint Isidore of Seville

Popes generally do not name patron saints as the faithful often are inspired to have their own local patron saints. How Pope John Paul decided to have St. Isadore as the patron saint of the Internet is unknown. How he became (by what individuals) the patron saint of computer programmers is equally unknown. But it is a logical step after the internet patronage question was made.

  In 1997, Pope John Paul II decided that the internet could use a patron saint to guide Catholics in its proper use. He chose Saint Isidore of Seville (560-636), Doctor of the Church, and last of the Latin Fathers. His twenty-book opus (called Etymologia, after the subject title of one of the books), made him an easy choice. The word “etymology” was Isidore’s own coinage. It means “the study of origins.” Today, the term is limited to the history, or origin, of words. Interestingly enough, three other words that I know of owe their invention to saints: “utopia” and “integrity” to Saint Thomas More and “soliloquy” to Saint Augustine.

  Here is a prayer to Saint Isidore that should be said before logging in on the internet:

  Almighty and eternal God, who created us in Thy image and bade us to seek after all that is good, true and beautiful, especially in the divine person of Thy only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, grant we beseech Thee, that, through the intercession of Saint Isidore, bishop and doctor, during our journeys through the internet we will direct our hands and eyes only to that which is pleasing to Thee and treat with charity and patience all those souls whom we encounter. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

  Source: Patron Saint for the Internet, Isidore of Seville

It seems that St. Isidore of Seville became the patron saint of the internet because he try to catalog all known existing information into book form. If computers were available in his day, he would have used the internet!

On a personal note: There is no patron saint for recycling or those involved in recycling. I do a lot of recycling, but for years I did not have a patron saint for it. Then one day, I came across the following article: Relic of St Clement found in trash settles into Westminster Cathedral. Ever since that day, Pope St. Clement became my patron saint when I am recycling. There are no rules or norms forbidding my choice in patron saint! For myself.

The following may be of interest to some:

Carlo Acutis is on path to becoming patron saint of the internet


Did the Jews think it was immoral to have leprosy? He stretched out his hand, and touched him, saying, “I want to. Be made clean.”
  Immediately the leprosy left him. He commanded him to tell no one, “But go your way, and show yourself to the priest, and offer for your cleansing according to what Moses commanded, for a testimony to them.” (Luke 5:13-14)

This indicates that Jews (including Jesus) thought illness is a punishment for your sins. Is that true? It seems to exclude today's basic Christian understanding.

Jews did not necessarily think it was immoral to have leprosy, but most scholars and Biblical commentaries agree that it was a common belief among the Jewish people of Jesus' day that leprosy, as well as disease and disability in general, was caused by sin.
Old Testament evidence
In the Old Testament, there are a number of passage that say doctors are of little value:

As for you, you whitewash with lies; worthless physicians are you all. (Job 13:4, ESV)
In the thirty-ninth year of his reign Asa was diseased in his feet, and his disease became severe. Yet even in his disease he did not seek the Lord, but sought help from physicians. And Asa slept with his fathers, dying in the forty-first year of his reign. (II Chronicles 16:12-13)

Instead, healing comes from prayer to God:

If there is famine in the land, if there is pestilence or blight or mildew or locust or caterpillar, if their enemies besiege them in the land at their gates, whatever plague, whatever sickness there is, whatever prayer, whatever plea is made by any man or by all your people Israel, each knowing his own affliction and his own sorrow and stretching out his hands toward this house, (2 Chronicles 6:28-29)
In those days Hezekiah became sick and was at the point of death. And Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz came to him and said to him, “Thus says the Lord, ‘Set your house in order, for you shall die; you shall not recover.’”  Then Hezekiah turned his face to the wall and prayed to the Lord... Thus says the Lord, the God of David your father: I have heard your prayer; I have seen your tears. Behold, I will heal you. (II King 20:1-2,5)

Psalms 110, brings together these idea nicely:

Some were fools through their sinful ways, and because of their iniquities suffered affliction; they loathed any kind of food, and they drew near to the gates of death. Then they cried to the Lord in their trouble, and he delivered them from their distress. He sent out his word and healed them (v17-21)

Here, "fools" are afflicted with illness because of their sinfulness and are cured when they ask God for help.
Likewise, literature of the Ancient Near East usually attribute illness either to sin or black magic.1
New Testament evidence
In Jesus' time, we have the example of this attitude in John 9:1-2:

As [Jesus] passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. And his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”

The idea that illness and disability were caused by sin is so ingrained that Jesus' Jewish disciples assume that being born blind must be the result of sin.  They don't even consider the possibility that his disability was not caused by sin.  Similarly, the healing of the paralytic in Luke 5:17-30 (which immediately follows the leprosy healing cited in the question) carries a strong connotation that sin and disability were related in the Jewish mindset.  In this passage, Jesus first tells the man his sins are forgiven, but the crowd is not convinced so Jesus proceeds to heal the man. Thus, Jesus is playing off their (false) belief that the man was crippled because of his sin.
Further evidence
The Talmud also supports the idea that this was a common understanding among the Jewish people.  For example, b. shabbat 55a states "there is no death without sin and there is no suffering without iniquity".  Indeed, Genesis Rabbah 63:6 supports the idea that sin can occur before birth.  In this passage, Rabbi Yonhanan interprets the story of Jacob and Esah "this one ran to kill this one and this one ran to kill this one [in the womb]".
tsara'ath (leprosy) - especially linked to sin
In regard to צָרָ֫עַת/tsara'ath (usually translated leprosy, although the symptoms don't closely match those of leprosy) specifically, the illness usually develops after a person attempts to challenge authority, a strong indication that it is the result of a specific sin.  For example, after Miriam challenged Moses (Numbers 12:10–15) and after Gehazi disobeyed Elisha (II Kings 5:20–27).
When Jesus heals "lepers" in the New Testament, he instructs them to "go and show yourself to the priest, and make an offering" (Luke 5:12-14 as noted; see also Matthew 8:3-4, Luke 17:12-14).  This special command, which does not normally follow healings, is further indication that this disease has a special spiritual significance.
The special significance of tsara'ath is backed by Rabbinic interpretation.  For example, Arakhin 16a states there are seven possible causes of the affliction, all of them serious sins.  Nahmanides described it as a withdrawal of God's presence, noting that the disease sometimes appeared on inanimate objects, such as the walls of one's home.2

1 Encyclopedia Judaica: Leprosy
2 "Tzaraat–A Biblical Affliction" by Tamar Fox at MyJewishLearning


Do spirits/souls make decisions/think? Today I heard an instructor (a monk) saying:

At The Third Council of Constantinople, counted as the Sixth Ecumenical Council by the Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church and other Christian groups, met in 680/681 and condemned monoenergism and monothelitism as heretical and defined Jesus Christ as having two energies and two wills (divine and human).

And he explained that Jesus had two wills, as a human, he was able to do the wrong or the right thing, he chose the right path, to show us that we could be just like him and follow the road to salvation. He also had the will of a God, because he is God.

He added, we all have two wills, take saints as an example, they have the will of a human, they can make decisions, to do the wrong or the right thing, but when they become saints, they have the will of a saint, which is to be with God and so on.

So I asked him: well the devil was a spirit right? So he made the wrong decision and became a devil, in fact all devils were angels. Which poses two questions.

If Spirits/souls/angels (call them what you want) do think and make decisions, wouldn't be possible to someone in heaven, maybe a saint, to make a wrong decision and end up in hell, just like the devil?
If they don't think and don't make decisions, meaning that if you were a saint on earth, you'll be a saint forever. Then how did the devil make the wrong decision? Furthermore, how do spirits live in heaven or hell, as objects?

He said we'll discuss that later, let me finish the course, so I'm bringing this topic to here.

When thinking about angels the scripture does not provide details of how they followed the Devil's pride in rebellion to God. However the two things it does it impress upon us is that they fell together. In other words God allowed something to test them and this split the good angels from the evil ones accordingly.  As God is omnipotent he is perfectly able to test the will of a creature and then prevent all future tests and temptations ensuring they are forever protected by the measure of godliness that he has filled them with, securing the boundary of their own volition within his boundless glory. This does not mean they are now robots it just means they are protected. It means they only make free choices that are not harmful to themselves, a heavenly freedom from earthly bondage including the tyranny of the Devil, sin and death.

As we turn to humans its all different.   Each human is born from another human, so individual testing could not occur all at once to winnow out the good and the bad. Furthermore due to the fall of mankind in Adam in some sense everyone failed the test in Adam. This means the choice was no longer possible accept under a redemption plan whereby our choice is enabled.

Once in heaven the same reality applies to saints as it does to angels. God is able to protect us from the type of test that fell upon the angels and he can do this forever and ever. This is clearly implied by the fact that saints inherit 'eternal life', not merely the 'potential' of it.


Are there any Reformed theologians who support the practice of mindfulness (inner body awareness)? As Eastern and Western religions begin to exchange lifestyles and practices, more and more Christians are participating in mindful meditation practices such as Zazen. When I refer to "mindfulness", I mean inner body awareness. This means you are both aware of your mental and physical state, therefor you are living and rooted in the present moment. Christian psych clinics are beginning to wonder if mindful meditation should be incorporated into their practices. My question is, can mindful meditation and living be consistent with biblical teachings? Are there any reformed theologians who support this view, and how do they defend it?

Zazen, based on the definition in Wikipedia, is not a biblical practice. With biblical meditation, we ponder God's word and works to get full and true insights into this life. We might look within in order to see what our desires are, but then we interpret those desires and feelings according to the word of God. Proverbs 3:5 tells us not to lean to our own understanding; Romans 7:18 tells us that there isn't anything good in the flesh, yet Zazen and different forms of Eastern meditation (of which I am a former practitioner) tell us to look within ourselves for answers.

Examples of biblical meditation:

Joshua 1:8

  This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt
  meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do
  according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy
  way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.

Psalms 1:2

  But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he
  meditate day and night.

Psalms 143:5

  I remember the days of old; I meditate on all thy works; I muse on the
  work of thy hands.

1 Timothy 4:15

  Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy
  profiting may appear to all.

Regarding living in the present moment, the accepted practice is to "remain in Him," to "pray always," to "walk circumspectly." In other words, live as though Christ was with you at all times. So the mindfulness of yourself is to keep your bodily desires under control and "keep yourselves in the love of God." Tow books promoting this view would be Present Perfect by Gregory A Boyd and The Practice of the Presence of God by Brother Lawrence.


Did Philip see Jesus turn water into wine? Did the disciple Philip witness Jesus turning water into wine? To my knowledge the verse doesn't explicitly state which disciples were with Jesus but is it known whether Philip was traveling with Him at that point?

According to the text in John 2, the only ones who actually witnessed the water turn to wine were the servants.

The Disciples were invited to go with Jesus to attend the wedding per verse 2. However, the only people listed in the back room who actually witnessed the water turn to wine, away from the view of the guests, was Jesus and the servants according to verse 6. This is emphasized in verse 9 where the text says the servants knew and it does not say that the disciples (at that time) knew.

The vessels: the vessels were vessels or stone sinks used for purification. They were not vessels used for drinking water.  They were basically kitchen sinks used for washing hands, washing pots and pans after a meal "vessels for purification."  I would think, since it's mentioned, it is important and meaningful.

This narrative illuminates the reason why Mary told the servants to do whatever Jesus tells them. They were told not only to fill the kitchen sinks with water, but also told to draw the water from a place you would never drink from, let alone give to wedding guests to drink.  However, when the servants, who were obedient, drew the water and served it to the guests, the master of the feast is the one who is the first to let the reader know that the dishwater was turned to wine.

That it was turned from water (water that went into the kitchen sink) into wine was realized by the servants after they drew it and served it per verse 9. I think about the relatively tiny fraction of those privileged enough to actually witness the miracle; specifically, we know it was the servants and of course the Lord because they are the only ones mentioned who filled the vessels then drew the water and served it to the guests.

The Disciples are mentioned nowhere in the entire incident except that they were invited, they attended, and because they too found out about the miracle of water turning to wine (verse 11) they believed in Him.

For me, the blessing is in the details.  Vessels used to clean the outside were used to change the cleansing material (water) in a supernatural way to a material used to cleanse the inside (wine); a picture of the supernatural power of the Holy Spirit, three days after the baptism of Jesus; death, burial, resurrection to new life.

Since it's not specifically stated in the passage yet may be gleaned from other passages in John and in the synoptics, exactly which disciples were invited along with Jesus, (I think all of them were) is not important.


In Mormonism, how is the doctrine of Adam & Eve inability to have children prior to the Fall explained? Inspired by this answer to a previous question, in which the answerer stated:

"For example, the Book of Mormon adds the belief that Adam and Eve could not have children before the Fall."

Supported by quoting from 2 Nephi 2:22-23:

And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created...
And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

This leads me to ask how could this be true, given that God told Adam and Eve to "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth." {Genesis 1:28}
It would seem that this is a clear contradiction between the Book of Mormon and the Bible.
How does the LDS church address this apparently-blatant contradiction?

Mormons believe both passages,

That Adam and Eve were commanded to multiply (Genesis 1:28).
Unless these partook of the fruit of the tree of knowledge Adam and Eve could not have children (2 Nephi 2:23).

Also,

God commanded them not to partake of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:17).

So really, the contradiction in Mormon belief seems to be in the commandments God gives to them: multiply and don't eat...but you can't multiply until you eat.

God is forcing them into a situation in which they cannot follow his commandments. Is God the author of sin?

Other Christians don't face this contradiction because #2 is unique to Mormonism.

AFAIK, there isn't a direct, clear-cut answer to this in canon, but here are two  scripturally-supported common explanations.

Explanation 1: It was a transgression, not a sin

Mormons consider transgressions and sins differently.

A transgression is violating a law. A sin is violating a law, knowing it to be evil.

Joseph Fielding Smith, a President of the LDS Church said

  I never speak of the part Eve took in this fall as a sin, nor do I accuse Adam of a sin...This was a transgression of the law, but not a sin...for it was something that Adam and Eve had to do!

Just as Mormons believe little children cannot sin (Moroni 8:8) they believe that Adam and Eve could not sin, as they did not know good from evil.

Thus, God's commandments were not a sadistic trap that forced them to sin. Instead, because they could not sin, he was offering a sin-free choice: live innocently in the garden forever without joy or pain, or leave the garden, know good and evil, and have posterity.

Eve chose the latter and Adam followed.

Explanation 2: One commandment superceded the other (for now)

An example:

Mankind (according to Mormonism and many other Christian faiths) is still under the command to "multiply and replenish the earth".

However, my adult sister is not participating in this commandment. Why? Though she could physically bear children, she is not married, and God has forbidden adultery/fornication. So on the one hand, God commands her to multiply, but on the other hand, another of God's commandments prevents her, at least for now.

This is the situation that Adam and Eve faced. They were to multiply, but another commandment (temporarily) restricted them from doing that. Had Adam and Eve refrained from partaking of the fruit, circumstances would have changed, i.e. God lifts the restriction, they fulfill his commandment to multiply, without repercussion.

Of course, Adam and Eve chose to take the fruit anyway, and God knew they would, but God wasn't contradicting himself then, just as he isn't contradicting himself now.

Additional notes

It is worth noting that rather than viewing the Fall of Adam and Eve as an unfortunate and evil accident, one which if it had not happened, everything would be perfect, Mormons see the Fall as necessary to the purpose of life on earth.

Life is an opportunity to learn to choose good over evil. This could not happen if there was not good or evil. (See 2 Nephi 2.)

The sacrifice of the Son of God was planned from "the foundation of the world" (Revelation 13:8). So also was the Fall -- which necessitated the sacrifice -- known from the beginning. Mormons often describe the Fall as a fall downward, but also forward.


Meaning behind skull at the base of a cross? I recently visited the Museum of Russian Icons on vacation and while there I came across many icons that portrayed the crucifix with a skull at the base of cross (example).

What is the significance behind the skull at the base of a crucifix?

There seems to be two interpretations of the meaning of the skull at the base of the cross, the first is more symbolic and the second is more historical:

The skull represents Adam, the first man, along with original sin. Jesus was sent to Earth to absolve us of our sins through His death. Jesus' blood is washing away our sins by flowing across the skull of Adam and that Jesus is above sin. (Source: http://ricklobs.blogspot.com/2009/03/have-you-ever-noticed-skull-at-base-of.html)
The hill that Jesus was crucified on was called Golgotha, or Skull Hill. This is where Adam was reportedly buried and the Lord was crucified where Adam lay. (Source: http://mysite.pratt.edu/~wburg/paint/p3skull.html) (Source 2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golgota)