Refute perceived differences in the Gospel between Peter and Paul from Sola Scriptura perspective What is the biblical evidence in keeping with the Protestant, Sola Scriptura perspective, for refuting a claim that Paul's gospel differed from Peter's gospel?
I see in Scripture:
2 Peter 1:1-2

Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,
To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:
May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.

and 2 Peter 3:13-15

But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.
Final Words
Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace.  And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,

And then from the Apostle Paul:
1 Corinthians 15:3-8, 17-22

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.
And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.
But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

It is easy to find Scriptures where Paul clearly affirms that justification is through faith in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins, and made accessible by grace.  What are the Scriptures, other than the one from 2 Peter above, which clearly indicate that this is the same Gospel of Jesus Christ which Peter received and passed along?

Peter's view that salvation is through faith in Jesus is evident. The difference is his epistles focuses more on the topic of sanctification through the Holy Spirit (1 Peter 1:2), which is a result of faith, but the underlying doctrine is the same.

1 Peter 1:5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
1 Peter 1:9  Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.
1 Peter 2:24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

In this next section, Bible verses also show that sanctification is a fruit of faith and is a theme preached by both apostles as a part of the gospel.
When the grace of God is received through faith, it has a sanctifying influence as we partake in divine nature (1 Peter 1:4, Romans 8:4) and die to self (1 Peter 2:5, Romans 6:6).

Romans 6:22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
Romans 6:12-13 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.

Too much emphasis is sometimes put on separating justification and sanctification. But if the heart in unrenewed, the belief of Christ is merely a theory, the seed of the gospel never takes root, and their belief is only external just as Satan and the demons also believe in Jesus.


What are the main differences between the Catholic and Protestant definitions of Biblical inerrancy? What are the main differences between the Catholic and Protestant definitions of Biblical inerrancy? Please include a summary of both the Catholic and Protestant definitions in the answer.

There is not any real difference between the Catholic teaching on inerrancy of Scripture and the generic "Protestant" view given in the answer above. The two definitive documents in recent history are probably Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Providentissiumus Deus and the Second Vatican Council Document Dei Verbum. These points more or less summarize the position given in the question description.

All Scripture is inspired by God, having God for its author, and therefore can contain no error.
Scripture truly has both a single Divine author and many individual human authors.
There may be errors in copies due to errors in transmission, but such errors do not extend to the original inspired copies.

This is the most relevant material from PD:

The principles here laid down will apply to cognate sciences, and especially to History. It is a lamentable fact that there are many who with great labor carry out and publish investigations on the monuments of antiquity, the manners and institutions of nations and other illustrative subjects, and whose chief purpose in all this is too often to find mistakes in the sacred writings and so to shake and weaken their authority. Some of these writers display not only extreme hostility, but the greatest unfairness; in their eyes a profane book or ancient document is accepted without hesitation, whilst the Scripture, if they only find in it a suspicion of error, is set down with the slightest possible discussion as quite untrustworthy. It is true, no doubt, that copyists have made mistakes in the text of the Bible; this question, when it arises, should be carefully considered on its merits, and the fact not too easily admitted, but only in those passages where the proof is clear. It may also happen that the sense of a passage remains ambiguous, and in this case good hermeneutical methods will greatly assist in clearing up the obscurity. But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it -- this system cannot be tolerated. For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican. These are the words of the last: "The Books of the Old and New Testament, whole and entire, with all their parts, as enumerated in the decree of the same Council (Trent) and in the ancient Latin Vulgate, are to be received as sacred and canonical. And the Church holds them as sacred and canonical, not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority; nor only because they contain revelation without error; but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author." Hence, because the Holy Ghost employed men as His instruments, we cannot therefore say that it was these inspired instruments who, perchance, have fallen into error, and not the primary author. For, by supernatural power, He so moved and impelled them to write -- He was so present to them -- that the things which He ordered, and those only, they, first, rightly understood, then willed faithfully to write down, and finally expressed in apt words and with infallible truth. Otherwise, it could not be said that He was the Author of the entire Scripture. Such has always been the persuasion of the Fathers. "Therefore," says St. Augustine, "since they wrote the things which He showed and uttered to them, it cannot be pretended that He is not the writer; for His members executed what their Head dictated." And St. Gregory the Great thus pronounces: "Most superfluous it is to inquire who wrote these things -- we loyally believe the Holy Ghost to be the Author of the book. He wrote it Who dictated it for writing; He wrote it Who inspired its execution."

It follows that those who maintain that an error is possible in any genuine passage of the sacred writings, either pervert the Catholic notion of inspiration, or make God the author of such error. And so emphatically were all the Fathers and Doctors agreed that the divine writings, as left by the hagiographers, are free from all error, that they labored earnestly, with no less skill than reverence, to reconcile with each other those numerous passages which seem at variance -- the very passages which in great measure have been taken up by the "higher criticism;" for they were unanimous in laying it down, that those writings, in their entirety and in all their parts were equally from the afflatus of Almighty God, and that God, speaking by the sacred writers, could not set down anything but what was true. The words of St. Augustine to St. Jerome may sum up what they taught: "On my part I confess to your charity that it is only to those Books of Scripture which are now called canonical that I have learned to pay such honor and reverence as to believe most firmly that none of their writers has fallen into any error. And if in these Books I meet anything which seems contrary to truth, I shall not hesitate to conclude either that the text is faulty, or that the translator has not expressed the meaning of the passage, or that I myself do not understand."

And from Dei Verbum:

Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself. In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted.

Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation. Therefore "all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind" (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).

However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms." For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another.
But, since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. The living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith. It is the task of exegetes to work according to these rules toward a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture, so that through preparatory study the judgment of the Church may mature. For all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God.

In Sacred Scripture, therefore, while the truth and holiness of God always remains intact, the marvelous "condescension" of eternal wisdom is clearly shown, "that we may learn the gentle kindness of God, which words cannot express, and how far He has gone in adapting His language with thoughtful concern for our weak human nature." For the words of God, expressed in human language, have been made like human discourse, just as the word of the eternal Father, when He took to Himself the flesh of human weakness, was in every way made like men.


Is disembodied heaven better or worse than embodied heaven, according to Catholicism? According to Catholicism, immediately after death someone either 'goes' to heaven (or purgatory) or hell. This is the first, or 'particular' judgment.
Then, at some unknown point in time, there will be a 'final' judgment, where people will be reunited with their (glorified) bodies.
Does the Catholic Church hold that the embodied state after the final judgment is better than heaven before being embodied, or from an individual perspective is there really no difference qualitatively in the two states?

Does the Catholic Church hold that the embodied state after the final judgment is better than heaven before being embodied, or from an individual perspective is there really no difference qualitatively in the two states?
The short answer is: YES, embodied state is better, and we will definitely notice the difference qualitatively!
The Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Body
First, let's consider the certainty of the resurrection of the body.  This is the undisputed opinion of the unified church since the Apostolic Father era (i.e. the church fathers who knew the apostles personally), shown by a quote from Pope Clement I who was consecrated by St. Peter the Apostle himself.  Then as early as AD 125 this doctrine has been included in The Apostles' Creed.  Important quotes from the early church can be read in a Catholic Answers website Tract What the Early Church Believed: Resurrection of the Body.
Opposition to the Resurrection of the Body
Next, let's consider the opposite position which taught that the soul is better without the body, coming against the Early Church Fathers who were in the process of defining the orthodox faith in greater detail.  This position came through multiple streams:

Platonism which taught that the body is a hindrance to the pursuit of wisdom and that "the philosophical life involves the attempt to free oneself (or soul) from the body, and so the philosophical life is a preparation for death."
Gnosticism which taught that the mortal body belongs to the world of inferior, worldly powers, and only the spirit or soul could be saved.
Manichaeism, a descendant of Gnosticism, which taught the soul came from the World of Light and became trapped in a human body.  St. Augustine, having been a Manichaean devotee before becoming Christian, was very familiar with this and was later instrumental in refuting this religion.

Christianity continued the Israelite vision of the body as created "Good"
Even though many early church fathers were influenced by the philosophical vocabulary at the time (Platonism), they strenuously argued against their pagan critics that the Israelite vision of the ideal human being as recorded in the Book of Genesis is correct one: that God created human being as a material body infused with immortal soul and that the whole unified human being is made in His image and pronounced good (Gen 1:27, 1:31, 2:7):

²⁷ So God created human beings in his own image.
In the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
³¹ Then God looked over all he had made, and he saw that it was very good!
⁷ Then the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground. He breathed
the breath of life into the man’s nostrils, and the man became a living person.

In contrast, modern theologians today need to defend not only the existence, but also the immortality of the human soul, against modern philosophical materialism which views the soul as merely an emergent property of the body.
Because of the fidelity to Genesis as well as to the full humanity of Jesus Christ as God incarnate, all mainstream Christian denominations for 2,000 years have been teaching that God will give the righteous a glorified body in heaven so that God's original purpose for human being, which was marred by death because of Adam's fall, will finally be fully realized.  Of course, due to the insufficient data from Scriptures, the conception of how the soul relates to the body has changed over time, and until today there is no dogma about it, BUT I believe the teaching that 1) the soul is UNNATURAL without the body and that 2) the glorified body in heaven is BETTER, has remained constant. If God doesn't consider the embodied person as better than just the soul, why would God resurrect our bodies?
Catechism of the Council of Trent on The Qualities of a Glorified Body
In the Catechism of the Council of Trent published 1566 under Pope Pius V, of which the PDF of the 1923 English translation based on the 4th Roman edition of 1907 can be found here) under Article XI ("The Resurrection of the Body") there is a section titled "The Qualities of a Glorified Body", which Catholic Apologist Tim Staples commented in his Catholic Answers article What is Heaven?:

... the Catechism of the Council of Trent, referencing the Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas Aquinas, lists these four “characteristics” or “gifts” that will be communicated to the blessed in heaven:
1) Subtility – This gift entails the absolute subordination of the body to the soul. So radical is this subordination that it will empower us to be able to pass through a wall as Jesus did in the Upper Room in John 20:19-20, while possessing flesh and bone just as he did as well. Remember: the disciples were gathered together in fear behind locked doors, after the resurrection of Christ, and before they had seen the risen Lord. Jesus suddenly appeared in their midst, though the doors remained locked. He passed right through the doors! Yet, as is revealed in Luke 24:39, in a parallel account of this same event, also after the resurrection, Jesus said to the apostles, “… handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have.”
2) Agility – In Acts 1:9, Jesus ascended up to heaven right before the very eyes of the apostles. And he didn’t even need rockets like R2D2! In fact, according to St. Thomas, the blessed in heaven, even after receiving their bodies in the resurrection, will be able to travel at the speed of thought, or in the “wink of an eye,” as St. Thomas says it, to any distance. Star Wars ain’t got nothin’ that can even compare with what awaits those who are faithful to Christ!
3) Impassibility – In simple terms, this means the blessed in heaven cannot suffer and cannot die (see Rev. 21:4). Indeed the bodies of the blessed will not only be immortal, but no sickness or any imperfection will be possible. We will not even so much as be able to stub a toe, even if we wanted to! Not that we would want to! But you get my drift!
4) Glory (or as the Roman Catechism calls it: “Brightness”) – The blessed in heaven will be glorified like Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration. Rooted in Jesus’ own words, “… the righteous will shine like the sun,” in Matthew 13:43, the Church teaches the blessed will shine with the glory of God so brilliant that it is believed by some that we on earth could not stand to even behold one of the blessed in heaven if he were revealed in all of his glory!

Modern Catholic restatement of the teaching that embodied state after final judgment is BETTER
The latest affirmation of the proper balance that Christians need to give to our bodies and our souls come from Pope John Paul II lecture series known as Theology of the Body with one sentence summary of each of the 129 lectures can be read at the EWTN website library.
Katrina J. Zeno, MTS who is endorsed by the Bishop of Phoenix to present talk, give workshop and teach courses on the Theology of the Body, wrote a web article It is the whole embodied person who is destined for salvation, not a soul separated from the body expounding on TOB Audience #67: The Resurrection Perfects the Person and John 15.
Several quotes from the article:

Only when both dimensions – body and soul are united forever in an eternal embrace of love – will you reach your full authenticity, your full stature and perfection. This is why every Sunday we profess, “I look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen!” Do you realize that when those words escape your lips, you are professing belief in the resurrection of your body?
The resurrection of the body is not an abstract concept, like saying “I believe the color blue exists.” This latter statement is impersonal. It exists as true apart from you (unless, of course, you are a Smurf). On the contrary, the resurrection of the body is a statement about your personhood, about the fulfillment of your human nature. You are a unified creature of both body and soul, which means your eternal happiness must include the resurrection of your body. Put briefly, your body has an eternal relationship with your soul that will not be discarded in eternity, but recovered and perfected.
...
...  Sin and death introduced an unnatural separation into our human nature, into our personal selfhood. Death, we could say, divorces the two lovers of soul and body from each other and thrusts the soul into an artificial state of separation from the body. ...
...
... Embodiment matters. Masculinity and femininity matter all the way into eternity. If the deepest cry of the human heart is to be loved, and if eternity is where we are loved in the absolute fullness of our personhood, and if human nature is by its very nature a unity of body and soul, then our eternal happiness can’t be a state of the soul alone, divorced from the body. We must have a glorified body in order to experience the fullness of love, the fullness of total self-giving of our embodied person [our selfhood] toward which we have been maturing, laboring, straining our whole life long. It is the whole embodied person who is destined for salvation, not a soul separated from the body.
...


What is the Biblical basis that the second Person of the Trinity was the Only-begotten Son of the Father before His incarnation? Do we have any proof from the Bible that the second Person of the Trinity was the Only-begotten Son of the Father before His incarnation?

The classic Bible verse to clearly declare that Jesus was the only-begotten son of God before the incarnation is John 1:1-2, declaring Jesus to be fully God, eternally with his Father.

  1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. (John 1:1-2).

From this eternity:

  14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:1-2).

Notice the words ‘One and Only’.

So Jesus is the Eternal Word, of the Father and is God of very God.  Now the eternal word of God is the express image ‘coming out’ of the Father which is his One and only Eternal Son.

God the Father Himself declared this Jesus to be his eternal Son, during the Baptism of John:

  9At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10As Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.” (Mark 1:9-11)

Now the only-begotten Son is not a fictitious rapture of his human nature in the incarnation, or resurrection but from eternity. Jesus said:

  And no man has ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.” (John 3:13)

I will end it here as this subject has been fully proven by so many theologians through history that I would never be able to add anything to it. John Owen (Quoting St. Jerome) indicates to me that we need not fuss over the term only-begotten. The Messiah, the Son of God has so many names referring to the same 'One and Only' as always believed in the Chruch:

  And Jerome, speaking of the effects of this mystery: (Comment. in
  Ezekiel, cap. 46:)
  “Ne miretur lector si idem et Princeps est et Sacerdos, et Vitulus, et Aries, et Agnus; cum in Scripturis sanctis pro varietate causarum legamus eum Dominum, et Deum, et Hominem, et Prophetam, et Virgam, et Radicem, et Florem, et Principem, et Regem justum, et Justitiam, Apostolu, et Episcopu, Brachium, Servum, Angelum, Pastorem, Filium, et Unigenitum, et Promogenitum, Ostium, Viam, Sagittam, Sapientiam, et multa alia.”
  — “Let not the reader wonder if he find one and the same to be the Prince and Priest, the Bullock, Ram, and Lamb; for in the Scripture, on variety of causes, we find him called Lord, God, and Man, the Prophet, a Rod, and the Root, the Flower, Prince, Judge, and Righteous King; Righteousness, the Apostle and Bishop, the Arm and Servant of God, the Angel, the Shepherd, the Son, the Only-begotten, the First-begotten, the Door, the
  Way, the Arrow, Wisdom, and sundry other things.” (John Owen’s Works Vol 1, P39)

Yes, He was the only begotten Son of God before the incarnation. This has always been one of the core beliefs within both Catholic and Protestant churches, across all the ages.


Who are the seven princes of hell? Who are the seven princes of Hell?
I think I know them but I am not 100%. I believe they are Belial, Satan, Beelzebub, Asmodeus, Laviathan, Mammon, Belphegor, Lucifer.
Could someone tell me if I am right and if so what hell are they in charge of please. If I am wrong could you tell me with their roles please.

According to Peter Binsfeld, you've got the list right.  He made the list in 1589; there was no support for that theory before then, and there has been very little support for that theory since.

As far as I know, there is no Christian tradition which adheres to there being seven princes of Hell.  More than that, at least the names "Lucifer" and "Satan" refer to the same entity.  Mammon is synonymous with greed or money (Matthew 6:24), but is sometimes personified also.  Asmodeus and Belphegor aren't even mentioned in the Bible.

Peter's list seems to have been extrapolated from the 7 deadly sins, without any scripture to back up his list.  Here it is.

Lucifer: pride
Mammon: greed
Asmodeus: lust
Leviathon: envy
Beelzebub: gluttony
Satan: wrath
Belphegor: sloth


Did Jesus celebrate Hanukkah? John 10:22–24 (NIV) says:

  22 Then came the Festival of Dedication at Jerusalem. It was winter,
  23 and Jesus was in the temple courts walking in Solomon’s Colonnade.
  24 The Jews who were there gathered around him, saying, “How long will
  you keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly.”

Does the "Festival of Dedication" refer to Hanukkah?  If so, does this mean that Jesus was present at the temple to celebrate Hanukkah?

The "festival of dedication" (or "feast") in this verse was indeed the forerunner of what is today Hanukkah.  It was established by Judas Maccabeus in the intertestamental period, as Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown write:

  [This festival of the Dedication] was instituted by Jude Maccabeus, to commemorate the purification of the temple from the profanations to which it had been subjected by Antiochus Epiphanes 165 B.C., and kept for eight days, from the twenty-fifth Chisleu (December), the day on which Judas began the first joyous celebration of it (1 Maccabees 4:52,56,59; and Josephus, Antiquities, 7.7.7).

Now, the festival goes by the name Hanukkah, as Wikipedia indicates, but it is observed on the same day and celebrates the same event.

As to whether Jesus actually celebrated Hanukkah, that's a bit more controversial.  John Wesley, following Grotius, thinks so:

  So our Lord observed festivals even of human appointment. Is it not, at least, innocent for us to do the same? (source)

But Calvin suggests that his purpose was to further his ministry:

  Christ appeared in the temple at that time, according to custom, that his preaching might yield more abundant fruit amidst a large assembly of men. (source)

So yes, this is a reference to Hanukkah, but it's harder to say if Jesus actually "celebrated" the holiday.


Variances in the sacrament of confession What are the different viewpoints between Anglicans, Orthodox churches and the Roman Church over the sacrament of Confession.

Of course Roman Catholics must confess mortal sins to priest to be absolved of the sin.  How would an Anglican view forgiveness in this sense?  Is the generic liturgical absolution in an Anglican eucharist ceremony the equivalent?

Similarly, how do the Orthodox churches address this sacrament?

The answer should show the differences or distinctions.

Roman Catholic Understanding

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

  Anyone who is aware of having committed a mortal sin must not receive
  Holy Communion, even if he experiences deep contrition, without having
  first received sacramental absolution (II.II.II.4.VII.1457)

I do not believe that the Roman Catholic understanding is that one's sins are not absolved if one fails to confess mortal sins in any case, but rather only in the case of mortal sins being knowingly concealed:

  When Christ's faithful strive to confess all the sins that they can
  remember, they undoubtedly place all of them before the divine mercy
  for pardon. But those who fail to do so and knowingly withhold some,
  place nothing before the divine goodness for remission through the
  mediation of the priest, "for if the sick person is too ashamed to
  show his wound to the doctor, the medicine cannot heal what it does
  not know." (Ibid., II.II.II.4.VII.1456)

The Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation, as it is called, also requires of the penitent "satisfaction":

  Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual
  health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must
  "make satisfaction for" or "expiate" his sins. This satisfaction is
  also called "penance." (Ibid., II.II.II.4.VII.1459)

 Eastern Orthodox Understanding

Within the eastern Church there is no such enumeration of "venial" and "mortal" sins.  In general the Orthodox Church is less legalistic.  All that is required of the penitent is:

  Contrition for his sins, with a full purpose of amendment of life, faith in Jesus Christ, and hope in His mercy.1

The sacrament, which is referred to as the "Mystery of Penitence", is described as:

  A sacrament in which he who confesses his sins is, on the outward
  declaration of pardon by the priest, inwardly loosed from his sins by
  Jesus Christ Himself.2

There is also a component of penitence in the Orthodox sacrament, but it is seen as less of a "satisfaction" and more of spiritual curative - this despite begin called sometimes by its Greek name, epithemia ("punishment", cf. 2 Corinthians 2:6):

  Under this name are prescribed to the penitent, according as may be
  requisite, divers particular exercises of piety, and divers
  abstinences or privations, serving to efface the unrighteousness of
  sin, and to subdue sinful habit; as, for instance, fasting beyond what
  is prescribed for all, or for grievous sins suspension from the holy
  communion for a given time.3

Although there are a large number of Church canons prescribing recommended epithemia for various offenses, priests have enormous discretion in deciding what sort of epithemia may be required, if any.

Anglican Understanding

My knowledge of Anglican ecclesiology is limited, but I understood that only Baptism and the Eucharist are recognized as Sacraments, as held by the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion that are found in the Book of Common Prayer:

  There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel,
  that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.

  Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation,
  Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and extreme Unction, are not to be counted
  for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the
  corrupt following of the Apostles.4

1 The Longer Catechism of the Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church, Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, Question 353
2 Ibid., Question 351
3 Ibid., Question 356
4 Article XXV, "Of the Sacraments"


Forgive Others As We Have Been Forgiven? Colossians 3:13 (KJV) - Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye.

As far as I am aware, God only forgives those who confess their sin to Him and repent of it.  Does this then mean, contradictory to all teaching on forgiveness I've heard, that we only need to forgive those who confess to us they have wronged us and repent of it?

Where your confusion seems to lie is in the fact that Salvation(forgiveness) is a gift from God.

This is what Christians believe.

The fact that Jesus died on the Cross So that our sins might be forgiven;

Matthew 20:28  KJV

  Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Please notice that this scripture says many and not all.

The reason for this is rather simple in that Salvation is a gift from God due to his enormous grace.

God sacrificed his son on the cross, so that we might receive his gift of Salvation , but just as any other gift it must be received by the person to whom it is presented.

For instance if you never open your Christmas gifts they are still gifts, but they do not do you any good until you do open them and begin to use them. And if you never do it is not the fault of the person who gave the gift .

So it is with Salvation it is there just waiting for acceptance, and even beyond acceptance to be used by the receiver. The two go hand in hand.

When Jesus died on the cross God heaped on him punishment for all the sins of the World, but it must be remembered that as terrible as it sounds that too was a gift (albeit a miserable gift), and as with all gifts Jesus had to accept them.

Colossians 2:13  KJV

  And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

We must also remember that a gift not only has to be received, but it must also be given and remember that those are our sins, they do not belong to either God or Jesus, therefore it is us who must make a gift of them to Jesus so that he too can make use of them to justify his dieing on the cross. Since he has taken the punishment,  we should at least make it worth his sacrifice.

The next step would logically be to do that, but the question is how can we?

Well that's a good question and I'm glad you asked it!

1st John 1:9  KJV

  If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Here is how it is done.

1  We must admit that those sins belong to us. (that is confession)

2 We must ask God to allow Jesus death on the cross to be the remission of our sins. (ask for forgiveness)

God will then turn to Jesus (who is at his right hand) and ask if he will accept your sin . (of course Jesus will say yes since he already suffered torture in your name).

At that time your sins will be taken from you and sacrificed on the Cross with Jesus.(that is forgiveness)

Believe then that your sins have been paid for in full, and you have been born again, not of the flesh but of the Spirit, and you have become worthy to enter Heaven since you are now sinless in God's eyes, and have become perfect as Jesus was perfect.

The key word here is believe.

1st John 1:12  KJV

  But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

As I said before a gift is only a gift not only when it is opened, but it must also be used.

Suppose you are given a car, and all you do with it is set it up and look at it.

It is still a gift and it is yours but until you start to dive it you are not making use of your gift.

There are two ways in which you can use your gift of Salvation, you can bask in it, which God wants you to do.

John  10:10  KJV

  The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

I like the more abundantly part!

and you can also share it. (which is what I am doing now.)

Here are some other Scriptures which help to explain.

All are from the King James version of the Bible.

  Mark 4:12  That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

  Matthew 9:6  But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.

  Ephesians 4:32  And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.


Are there Christians who believe Jesus was an ideology and not a person? Is there a denomination or Christian religion that believes that Jesus Christ was just an idea or way of thinking and that the apostles must have personalized him for the people to understand it easier? If so, what is their biblical basis for rejecting the historical personhood of Jesus? I'm not asking on the historicity of Christ.

For example:

  Mark 6:45-56 Shortly before dawn he went out to them, walking on the lake. He was about to pass by them, but when they saw him walking on the lake, they thought he was a ghost.

He was about to pass by them? It doesn't make sense. It would make sense if he was going towards them. This is something that could be taken as a metaphor from the Old testament. Title for God, the one who walks on water. Job 9:8, Psalms 76:19, LXX]

Further arguments would be that the whole life of Christ could be summed up into something that the first Christians started to believe. That is was their new way of thinking and that surrounding Jews tried to kill this new way of thinking but in 3 days it rose again.

There certainly are people and movements who believe that, in several variations. The most significant ones are typified by the book The Pagan Christ, by Tom Harpur, a former Anglican priest. In the book he claims to identify many similarities between the stories of Jesus and ancient myths, especially Egyptian ones, and concludes that the early church leaders fabricated a literal and human Jesus based on those myths. Harpur based his work largely on that of Alvin Boyd Kuhn, who was in turn influenced by Gerald Massey.

The ideas of Harpur and his predecessors has garnered a lot of attention, much of it from people more anxious to disprove Christianity than to find the 'true version' of it. However, there are very few who would follow his teachings as an ideology, and even fewer who do so would call themselves Christian. The ideas of this movement have been widely criticised (most would say 'refuted') not just by Christian theologians, but also by Egyptologists and other students of ancient religions.


What is the Biblical Basis for "Schools of Prophecy"? 1. Question - A Reference Request for a Biblical Basis :

Is there any Biblical Basis for "Schools of Prophecy" - where People are trained how to use the Gift of Prophecy they already have?

Closely Related To:

https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/50930/what-is-the-biblical-basis-that-prophecy-can-be-taught-like-a-skill
In Scripture - Was Prophecy That was Spoken in Good Faith, ever Corrected?
https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/50906/in-scripture-was-gods-voice-ever-mistaken-when-spoken-privately

1. Schools of the Prophets in the Old Testament

Many well known commentaries explain the "sons of the prophets" referred to on multiple occasions in the Old Testament [1 Kings 20:35; 2 Kings 2:3,5,7,15; 4:1,38; 5:22; 6:1; 9:1] as:

  ...the schools of the prophets... - Benson, Pulpit, Matthew Henry

  ...a school of the prophets... - Gill

  ...schools... - Barnes, Matthew Poole

  ...The Prophetic college... - Ellicott

In summarising what can be drawn from scripture about these institutions, Ira M. Price (a founding faculty member of the University of Chicago, professor of ancient languages and literatures) concluded1:

  ...The sons of the prophets 1) were collected together in bands or schools; 2) in six different localities, viz., (a) Ramah, (b) Bethel, (c) Gilgal, (d) Jericho, (e) Carmel, (f) Samaria; 3) Under the tuition of (a) Samuel, (b) Elijah, (c) Elisha; 4) with instruction in (a) prophesying-worship, (b) sacred music, (c) practical matters of their day; 5) with their time wholly occupied in (a) study and worship, (b) doing errands for their masters and God, (c) performing the regular duties of a prophet; 6) largely dependent for their support on the charity of the people.

2. Training mandate given to the New Testament Office of Prophet

In instructing the Ephesian church with regard to spiritual gifts, the Apostle Paul had the following to say:

  7 But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift. 8 Therefore He says:

  “When He ascended on high,
  He led captivity captive,
  And gave gifts to men.”

  9 (Now this, “He ascended”—what does it mean but that He also first descended into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He who descended is also the One who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.)

  11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; 14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, 15 but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ— 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love. - Ephesians 4:7-16 NKJV

Those who advocate for modern day schools of prophecy generally interpret this passage as:

Establishing ongoing (v13) five-fold "office gifts" (v11) (including the office of Prophet).
The role of the office gifted is not so much to do the work of ministry themselves, but primarily to train the saints to do the work of ministry (v12).
The type of training offered by five-fold ministers varies according to their gifts - Apostles excel in training the Church to be more apostolic, Prophets excel in trainging the Church to be more prophetic etc.

This passage is referred to under the statement of beliefs of the Azusa Street Mission:

  THE MINISTRIES OF CHRIST - We believe in the full function of the five-fold ministry which was given to perfect and equip the saints so they can enter into the work of their ministry, thereby edifying the whole Body of Christ. [Eph. 4:11-16; I Cor. 12:28.] We believe in the present day ministries of the apostles and prophets, which Christ has set in the Church as foundational and revelational ministries. We believe these two ministries will be restored to function in full power and authority before the literal second coming of Christ. [Eph. 2:20; Acts 3:21.]

The associated ecclesiology is explained a little more under:

  ORDINANCES - We believe in two primary New Testament ordinances: Baptism by immersion and The Lord's Supper. However, we do not believe that the administration of such ordinances is limited to ordained or licensed ministers. We believe in the priesthood of believers. Ordination and licensing in this organization is a separation and recognition of a specific gifting of God. We believe that God calls men into specific ministries as apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers. God calls. Man can only recognize the call and acknowledge it. Ordination is on the basis of that recognition of God's gifting. Men called to a specific office by God and ordained or licensed by this organization will have the right to participate in the traditional sacramental and ordinal functions of the organization such as marriage, funerals, baptisms, and the like. They shall also be expected to function in the spiritual gifting(s) of their office and to demonstrate the reality of their calling. This organization is a non-sacramental protestant group. We reject the efficacy of ritual and the concept of a separate priestly class. We recognize the priesthood of believers and the serving ministry of the apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor, and teacher with government by elders. As such, we recognize that those called to those offices will function in a manner to lead by example in prayer, worship, teaching, laying on of hands, and prophesying and that such action on the part of those ordained and licensed by this organization are equivalent to the sacramental function of the priesthood in traditional sacramental churches.

1.  The Schools of the Sons of the Prophets,
Ira M. Price,
The Old Testament Student,
Vol. 8, No. 7 (Mar., 1889), pp. 244-249


Why does the Quran mention Jesus Christ 25 times, but Mohammad only 5 times? I ask anyone here, and I ask all people who think that Muhammad, peace be upon him, edited and wrote the Quran, to give me a fair and convincing answer for this question:

Question: Why is Jesus Christ mentioned 25 times in the Quran, and Muhammad, peace be upon him, only 5 times ? And I would also ask you to provide, for comparison, the number of times they are mentioned in the Holy Bible.

Mohammed is not cited in the Bible, obviously, because all books in the Bible predate him.
Jesus is named, according to this answer, well over 900 times.

How often they are cited in Quran and especially why is irrelevant here and you would better ask this question at Islam.SE where there are people familiar with Quran.


Why is saying Vespers on Holy Thursday and Good Friday discouraged? According to my copy of ''The Divine Office'' (the UK/Australia edition of the Liturgy of the Hours/Roman Breviary), on Holy Thursday and Good Friday the saying of Vespers is discouraged:

  Evening Prayer is said only by those who do not attend the Evening Mass of the Lord's Supper.
  Evening Prayer is said only by those who do not attend the Afternoon Liturgical Action of the Passion.

I don't understand why these offices are removed: can anyone explain it?

(The other omissions – compline on Easter Eve and the office of readings on Easter Day – are easier to understand: the Easter Vigil renders them unnecessary.)

The first thought that crossed my mind was that the obligation (at least today) of reciting the Divine Office (including Vespers) was limited to the clergy and Religious. The obligation of reciting Vespers on Holy Thursday and Good Friday has been dispensed with in our day in order to make the burden of fasting and long hours of liturgical prayer less burdensome.

Please keep in mind that there are still many religious communities and individuals who at least try to follow the older practice of fasting for 40 days during Lent.

"This ancient practice is reflected in the rubric of the Breviary of St. Pius V that Vespers are to be said before the principal meal of the day. (By the sixteenth century, the discipline of the ancient Lenten fast had been considerably relaxed, and the custom had become almost universal of anticipating all of the hours, including Vespers, to the morning, and breaking the fast around noon.)
This is also the reason why the Mass of the very last day of Lent, Holy Saturday, traditionally ends with Vespers, which return thereafter to being sung at their normal time. In some rites, such as that of the Premonstratensian Order, this custom was extended to the other days of the Triduum, and Vespers were said as the Postcommunion of the Masses of the Lord’s Supper, and of the Presanctified.

On Holy Thursday, there were originally three Masses, one for the consecration of the Holy Oils, one for the reconciliation of those who had been doing public penance during Lent, and the evening Mass in commemoration of the Lord’s Supper. All three of these Masses were normally to be celebrated by the bishop, to whose office all three of these events especially pertain. As one might imagine, the celebration of three Masses in one day was found to be fairly burdensome."- Compendium of the 1955 Holy Week Revisions Of Pius XII

The liturgical hour for the Mass of the Last Supper was restored to its' proper liturgical hour in 1930 to that of Terce (hora tertia).

The same thing happened with time for the Good Friday commemoration. Instead of being commemorated in the morning, it also got moved to a more befitting time of Terce or sometime after 3:00 PM.

If priests and Religious were to be obliged to recite Vespers after these liturgical functions it would a great burden on them physically because the Lenten fast would not be broken until after the recitation of Vespers!

The rules for fasting have since been revised also.


Altars in today's Christian Churches Wonder why altars are not prevalent in Christian churches. It seems that a stage is used where all activities during the worship service take place, but there is no set aside place for the presence of GOD, this is the reason to have an altar.
Please comment.

Actually, more Christian Churches have altars than not. They are the focal point for worship in Anglican, Catholic, Lutheran, and Orthodox congregations. In the Old Testament Hebrew worship, from which a number of essential elements of Christian worship derive, the Altar was a place of offering, and in the Hebrew tradition, this meant places for animal sacrifice--sin offerings, thank offerings, and other sacrifices as detailed in Mosaic Law. For those Christian churches which retain altars, they are still the focal point of offerings, not animal sacrifice, but rather offering of our selves and those things with which God has entrusted us. Nearly all Christians have dispensed with animal sacrifice, seeing instead the crucifixion as the perfect sacrifice, made once for all, and all time.

It is true that most Protestant traditions other than Anglican and Lutheran have replaced the altar with the communion table. The reason for this is that generally, those traditions, while still seeing the crucifixion as the one perfect offering, see the Last Supper, and the words of institution, as a sufficient remembrance of the perfect sacrifice.


How did the Crusades affect the Pope's power and authority? How did the Crusades affect the Pope's power/authority, during and after the Crusades?
The Crusades, from Wikipedia

The Crusades were a series of religiously sanctioned military campaigns, called by the Pope and with the main goal of restoring Christian control of the Holy Land. The crusaders came from all over western Europe. The main series of Crusades occurred between 1095 and 1291; historians have given them numbers, later unnumbered crusades were also taken up for a variety of reasons.

The era of the Crusades certainly coincides with a dramatic increase in the authority of the Pope, both in practical terms and in the development of doctrine. It is a bit hard to untangle how much of this is due to the Crusades themselves.

First, a word of warning! It is very easy to slip into anachronistic habits when thinking about the medieval papacy. It is often confused with:

the nineteenth-century papacy - with a well-developed bureaucracy, unquestioned disciplinary authority, and infallibility.
the sixteenth-century papacy - the institution that Martin Luther was so upset about. The seeds of later doctrine were present at the time, but were less developed and more contested; and it was in this period that many of the major institutions of the Roman church began.

Another word of warning: it's tempting to imagine that this history is the result of a single papal master plan to increase their power, a sort of conspiracy theory. Actually, individual popes differed enormously in  their personal beliefs about the role of the Church and the Papacy, let alone their ability to implement them.

In the following, I'll explore the relationships between the See of Rome and other  contemporary powers: the Emperor, other rulers, other bishops (as well as abbots and so on) in the Western church, and the patriarchs of the Eastern sees.

The Emperor

The overwhelmingly most important power conflict was with the Emperor. This was the struggle that animated contemporary political theory, as well as the grounding theology of the Pope's temporal power. Both parties claimed a kind of supreme authority (as well as claiming to be the legitimate heirs of the Roman Empire) and so it was quite the puzzle to decide who was allowed to tell the other one what to do, and who appointed new Popes or Emperors. The doctrine of the "two swords" divided their responsibilities - but not like
our modern idea of the separation of the church and the state. In the version of Bernard of Clairvaux (enlisted by Eugene III to preach support for the Second Crusade) there is a spiritual sword, belonging to the Pope, and a temporal sword, in the custody of the Emperor, but ultimately subject to papal authority. The church does not fight, but it commands.

A good example here is Innocent III's decree Per venerabilem (1202) which asserts a papal power to supervise the Imperial election, since he sees the institution of the Empire as a creation of the Church. Innocent III was not only a reforming and monarchical Pope, but also the one who called the Fourth Crusade, and excommunicated Otto IV. Although the Empire became a less relevant political force in later years, the contest between Empire and Papacy (partly driven by the issue of control over the Crusades) did help to solidify the doctrine of papal supremacy.

Other secular princes

In the same way, other rulers were meant to have a duty to fight
for the Church when requested (on pain of deprivation of Communion, at the
least, according to Gratian). This applied to the suppression of heresy,
and to the Crusades in the East. The duty was not the same as the normal
feudal obedience, though; it applied even to those who did not have a cleric
as their feudal lord (such as the papal possessions in central Italy that were
to become the Papal States). But in practice, it's not like a bishop could just turn
up at a castle and start telling the king what to do, especially when the
king considers the bishop to be one of his subjects. Perhaps he even
nominated the bishop to the see, and expected regular tax payments rather than
being asked to pay some sort of crusading tax in the other direction.

So crusades tended to create local political crises of this kind: and in the
long term, the Church was able to negotiate a standard where clergy were
in a sort of parallel legal world. They had their own law (canon law), their
own system of taxation (tithes and so on), and their own hierarchy of loyalty.
Although much of this was systematized at the Fourth Lateran Council, under Innocent III once again, it had been a long time in the building.

Local clerical authorities

It's easy to take for granted, now, the extent to which local diocesan bishops are subordinated to Rome. In the past, bishops (and abbots) were much more independent - legally, in the scope of their ability to make law for their diocese; and politically, in the power they could draw from tithes, assignment of benefices, and so on. During the time of the Crusades, the papal curia developed into an institution that was not just for the Pope's household and his diplomatic efforts, but was a bureaucratic organ for the whole church. Increased centralization was at the expense of bishops' autonomy. It's hard to say if this was "because of" the Crusades, but there are some key points that helped:

The levying of Crusading taxes, payable directly to Rome, on all clergy (not just those in the diocese of Rome, and not passing through the bishop's hands).
Crusade-related indulgences were established by the Pope and universally applicable. This coincides with the expansion of the formal system of penance, wherein the pardoning of certain offences was reserved to the Holy See, and regular standing tribunals were set up in Rome with universal jurisdiction.
Roman control over doctrinal orthodoxy grew. (Even though Peter Damian had asserted as early as 1062 that disagreeing with the Pope is automatically heresy, it took quite a while for this to filter down into actual practice.) Local ad-hoc synods for the judgement of heresy were replaced by (1) the studium generale system for theological training, with universities having a papal mandate and being exempt from local episcopal control, and (2) more standardized canon law. This is more relevant to the later European Crusades, such as the one against the Cathars.

The Eastern churches

The obvious doctrinal roadblock to Papal supremacy is the fact that there were all these other Patriarchs in the East, who thought that the Pope was first among equals, rather than being a level above. Calling a Crusade at all is a direct assertion of a Pope's universal authority, since it invoked papal jurisdiction outside his traditional territory. During the era, there is a shift from the First Crusade (partially justified by the idea that Constantinople had asked for help from the West) to the Fourth (in which Constantinople was sacked); put crudely, people in the West cared less about what the Eastern Church wanted. The ultimate failure of the Crusades to maintain Christian hegemony over the Near East meant that the Patriarchs were in no position to challenge claims of papal authority in the Western Church.

Aftermath

The papacy was no longer a merely local institution, but a prize which was definitely worth fighting over. After the Crusades come the exile in Avignon, the Western Schism, and conciliarism - all of these represent attempts, by one party of another, to control the papacy. In the longer term, the increased centralization and organization of the Church ultimately created its own internal challenges to unfettered papal authority. Among these are:

The Curia: now an institution with real power.
The College of Cardinals: transformed from a body of local helpers and advisors, into a sort of Senate of the most important clerics from anywhere in the Church.
Councils: various versions of conciliar theory saw regular general councils as an alternative mode of governance for the church (carrying papal authority, but possibly without the Pope himself).
Universities: the complexity of theology and law required experts, because Popes couldn't realistically run things on their own.
Chivalric orders: wealthy, powerful, and potentially disinclined to obey papal directives.

Again, there were and are many schools of thought about exactly what the scope of papal power ought to be. The Crusading era saw the emergence of a particularly strong version of the doctrine of papal authority, which the Popes were ultimately unable to maintain, but which is in continuity with the present forms and structures of the Roman Catholic Church.


Do Christians receive the same inheritance as Messianic Jews? I know that in Christ there is complete redemption for both Jew and Gentile but it seems as though God has made specific promises to the house of Israel and that God throughout the bible shows special affinity toward Israel.

The promise of Israel was that they would rule all the nations from Jerusalem and that all the material blessings of God will flow from Israel to the other nations.

God also refers to Israel as his firstborn among the nations and according to the royal pattern God has set, the first born always receives the largest inheritance among his siblings.

So in patristic perspective, do the Jews in Christ receive a particular inheritance while Gentiles also receive a great yet definitively different inheritance?

The Jews in Christ will inherit the land of Israel. Will Gentiles rule in Israel with Jews or will Gentiles inhabit / rule their own respective nations in Christ, i.e Russia, China, Central African Republic, Japan, Germany, India, etc.? What is the protestant view on this?

Most Christians will likely agree on the basic principle that the Children of Israel, down to the present day have a special relationship with God, but that at this stage, we don't know what that relationship is, exactly. Jesus' parable of the workers in the vineyard (cf. Matthew 20:1 ff.) might apply here, with the Children of Israel representing those hired earlier in the day, and Gentile Christians representing those hired at the eleventh hour. On the other hand Paul taught the Galatians (3:28-29) that there is "neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you're Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring according to the Promise." [RSV]

Besides, Jesus was a Jew. Christians believe nearly universally that we are part of the Body of Christ, which makes us Jews, too.

By the way, it should be noted that depending upon their exact beliefs, most Messianic Jews would be considered Christians.


How do Trinitarians interpret John 14:10? John 14:10

  Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.

My father and pastor, who is an advocate for the Oneness position stated:

  Jesus' divinity is what we call "the Father." That's why Son can say "the Father living in me does the works," since the term "Son" is used to denote the flesh or humanity of Christ. Jesus is then, both the Father and the Son."

How do Trinitarians explain the meaning of this passage? How is the Father "in" Jesus yet distinct from Jesus?

The Orthodox Christian interpretation is that the essence of the Father and the Son is the same, but that they are still different persons.  This is the Christian dogma of homousia that was affirmed at the First and Second Ecumenical Councils in the 4th century, and is stated in the Nicene Creed.  At the First Council of Nicea in 325 the Church affirmed:

  We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God ... that is of the
  essence of the Father [ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Πατρός] ... being of one
  substance with the Father [ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί]

Theophylact of Ohrid (1055-1107), summarized the Orthodox understanding of the passage you cite as follows:

  The Son is in the Father.  This means that the Son is revealed in
  the essence of the Father, and the Father is revealed in the essence
  of the Son.  Similarly, a king is visible in his portrait [if it is
  well drawn], and the portrait is visible in his person.  This is
  because of the characteristics shared by the portrait and the king.
  To show that His essence is the same as that of the Father, Christ
  declares, The words that I speak unto you I speak not of Myself.
  This means, "I speak only what the Father speaks.  I have nothing of
  My own that is separate from the Father.  Everything We have, We
  possess in common.  We share one essence in two distinct hypotheses
  [persons].  The words I speak and the works I do are the Father's.
  Because Our works are divine, the Father is God and I am God:  they
  are the works of a single essence.  Whatever I do, the Father does.
  Whatever the Father does, I do.

  Believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me

  This means, "The very names Father and Son are sufficient to
  indicate that Our essence is identical.  However, if this does not
  convince you that Our works are one in essence and honor, and that the
  Father is manifested in My essence and I in His, then believe Me for
  the very works' sake, for they are the works of God."

  Explanation of the Gospel of John (tr. Chrysostom Press),
  pp.227-228

Perhaps, however, as you suggest some sort of argument supporting a different theology can be constructed on the basis of John 14:10 alone.  This would be a very weak theology, though, would you agree?  Any dogma proposed would have to find support throughout all of Scripture, without contradiction.  We have for example, the testimony at the very beginning of John's Gospel (1:3):

  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
  was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made
  through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.

Furthermore, if the "Son" was only the "flesh", how do we interpret the tripartite division of body, soul and spirit? (1 Thessalonians 5:23).  Did the "Son" refer only to the body, but the soul and spirit to God?  How could the body only then pray to God the Father, as Jesus is shown to do in the Gospels.


In Catholic art imagery, how is hell symbolized? In Catholic art and imagery how is hell symbolized? If a symbol does exist for it, why was this particular symbol chosen?
In other words, does hell have a symbol?

In Catholic art and imagery how is hell symbolized?
In Catholic imagery hell is symbolized with the Labyrinth. The labyrinth can equally symbolize other things also.

Background:
In Greek mythology, King Minos of Crete defeated King Aegeus of Athens and threatened to destroy his country unless, every nine years, he sacrificed seven boys and seven girls to the Minotaur -- a half-man, half-bull monster -- who lived in the labyrinth in Crete. King Aegeus's son, Theseus, decided to go to the labyrinth and kill the Minotaur, releasing the captives and ending the sacrifices once and for all.
On the way to fulfill his mission, he met King Minos's daughter, Ariadne, who fell in love with him and promised to help him find his way back out of the labyrinth if he would marry her and take her back to Athens with him. She gave him a sword and a ball of thread and told him to fasten one end of thread at the labyrinth's entrance and unravel the spool behind him as he walked through to find the Minotaur and kill him with his sword. Following the thread in reverse, he'd be able to find his way out of the dark, twisting passages. Theseus did as Ariadne told him, killed the Minotaur, and followed the thread back out to safety (neither here nor there with regard to our purposes, he left Ariadne behind when he went back to Athens! (The classic-style, seven-circuit, Cretan labyrinth is shown at right.)
From 19th c. archaeologist Rodolfo Lanciani's "Pagan and Christian Rome":

Theseus killing the Minotaur in the labyrinth of Crete, and labyrinths in general, were favorite subjects for church pavements, especially among the Gauls. The custom is very ancient, a labyrinth having been represented in the church of S. Vitale at Ravenna as early as the sixth century. Those of the cathedral at Lucca, of S. Michele Maggiore at Pavia, of S. Savino at Piacenza, of S. Maria in Trastevere at Rome (destroyed in the restoration of 1867), are of a later date. The image of Theseus is accompanied by a legend in the "leonine" rhythm: Theseus intravit, monstrumque biforme necavit ["Theseus entered, and killed the bi-form monster"].

The classical world's labyrinths were at first seen by Christians as metaphors for sin and the powers of Hell, as can be seen from this inscription which was originally found at the center of the Chartres labyrinth:

This stone represents the Cretan's Labyrinth. Those who enter cannot leave unless they be helped, like Theseus, by Ariadne's thread.

Though originally seen as metaphors for the dark powers of Hell and our need to rely on Our Lady to show us her Son, over time labyrinths came to be seen quite differently. During the Crusades when Christians couldn't make visits to the Holy Land, and in the same manner that the Way of the Cross devotion developed as a sort of substitute "pilgrimage" to the Holy City, labyrinths came to be used as substitute "Chemins de Jerusalem." Christians, barred from earthly Zion, would walk the labyrinths, often on their knees in penance, meditating on the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ. - Labyrinths:
Symbols of Hell & the Pilgrim's Way

The labyrinth can symbolize many things to the Early Christians.

Many Christian labyrinths appear relatively late in history, around the 20th century. The first labyrinth in a Christian church appeared in the forth century. When Christians could no longer make physical pilgrimages to their spiritual home in Jerusalem, they walked a symbolic pilgrimage on a labyrinth built in to the floor of the nave of a cathedral. They turned a physical journey in to a spiritual journey.
To early Christians the labyrinth symbolized many things.
§ Some thought that if they could not get to Jerusalem, they made believe that they were
walking to Jerusalem on the Labyrinth.
§ Going into the labyrinth also symbolized a trip to the underworld, and the trip was a
resurrection; heaven and hell are both invoked in its pattern.
§ Some thought the labyrinth to represent the soul’s journey to Christ.
One of the most famous Christian Labyrinths that is still intact is found on the floor of the Chartres cathedral in France. The circle on the floor repeats the pattern of the stained-glass circle of the western rose window. This window symbolizes heaven with Christ at the center surrounded by four rings with twelve circles in each. Twelve is the number of Apostles. When the sun hits the window, which is composed of nothing but colored lights, it cases its image down to the earth and the maze. - Labyrinth


How does the doctrine of British Baptists compare with their American cousins? This question examines the difference between the American Baptists and Southern Baptists in the USA. In the UK, there is one formal Baptist denomination, the Baptist Union of Great Britain (BUGB).

How does BUGB doctrine compare with the American equivalents? Which is it closer to? (The principle difference between the American denominations seems to be that the Southern Baptists encourage re-baptism while the American Baptists don't; the BUGB website doesn't seem to comment on this).

The BUGB is pretty liberal and there are many things on which it does not have a clear view. To that extent, I would guess it's a bit more like the American Baptists than the Southern Baptists who, from my transatlantic vantage point, appear to be more evangelical in their doctrine, generally.

Though there are some evangelical Baptist churches still within the BUGB, a large proportion of UK churches which bear the name "Baptist" are in fact either independent (in some cases affiliated with other independent churches through organisations such as Affinity, the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches [FIEC] or the Evangelical Movement of Wales) or part of other Baptist denominations such as the Grace Baptists.


How do Protestants interpret Ezekiel 18:20-32? Here is my translation:1

Ezekiel 18:20-32
The soul that sins, the same [only] shall die: the son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father the guilt of the son: the righteousness of the righteous will fall to the righteous, and the wickedness of the wicked to the wicked. 21 And a wicked man who turns away from all he sins which he had comitted, and observes all of my statues, and does righteousness, and judgement, the same shall live: he shall not die. 22 And none of his transgressions shall be remembered or held against him: by his righteousness he shall live.
23 Do I enjoy the death of the wicked, says the Lord God, Would I not rather see him turn from his ways and live? 24 But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, and does iniquity, after the manner of the deeds which wicked men are wont to do, shall he do it and live?
25 Yet you say, The way of the Lord is perverse. Listen, O house of Israel! Is my way not right, and your ways perverse rather? 26 When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, and does iniquity, and he dies therein, the same shall die in his iniquity. 27 Again, when a wicked man turns from the wickedness which he committed, and does judgement, and righteousness, the same shall keep his soul alive: 28 when he examines [himself], and turns back from all his trespasses, he shall live, and shall not die.
29 But the house of Israel say, The ways of the Lord are perverse. Are my ways not right, and your ways perverse rather, O house of Israel? Are not rather your ways perverse?
30 Therefore: I shall judge a man according to his ways, thou house of Israel, says the Lord God. Repent, and turn from all your transgressions, and your sin shall not be an obstacle to you. 31 Cast off from yourselves all of your transgressions wherein you have transgressed, and create for yourselves a new heart, and a new spirit: for what reason would you then die, O house of Israel?
32 For it is not my desire that anyone should die, says the Lord God: turn therefore, and live!

This seems to teach that sin directly corresponds to condemnation, and righteous living directly corresponds to life. However, this would seem to be at odds with the Protestant doctrine of simul justus et peccator (at once a sinner and just[ified]).
Question
How do Protestants interpret this passage?
I would like to anticipate a couple responses:

'Keeping the law perfectly' clearly isn't in view here, since God expects people to be able to keep his statutes in general: it must therefore refer to an attitude of holding them as necessary and as pertaining to justification, even if you fall short (for which repentance is here recommended). In other words, the space given for repentance doesn't make them not necessary for justification.

This is not about capital punishment under the Mosaic Law, but justification—life and death of the soul: "Therefore I [God] will judge you according to your ways." "A new heart and a new spirit."2

However, feel free to challenge these.
Thanks in advance.

1 Avoids doctrinally relevant 'surprises' pertaining to translation.
2 This need not be conflated with a later dispensation in the New Covenant era (He's speaking to people in Ezekiel's time, and expecting them to obey) or regeneration proper. In context it simply means here turning your life around.

This passage is about repentance.
Though a soul start ever so badly, he will be fully forgiven immediately upon his repentance; and though a soul start ever so well, he will be rejected if he apostates; and each individual soul is answerable to God directly.
The principle sentence in the question is:

This seems to teach that sin directly corresponds to condemnation, and righteous living directly corresponds to life. However, this would seem to be at odds with the Protestant doctrine of simul justus et peccator (at once a sinner and just[ified]).

The passage is teaching what Protestants believe: in the instant/second/moment someone repents they are fully justified/declared righteous by God.
True repentance is the immediate consequence of true faith: or put another way "faith" and "repentance" are two sides of the same coin.  So, even though the one repenting is a sinner, he immediately becomes fully justified upon his repentance which arises because he believes in the goodness of God, and His offer of full forgiveness upon repentance.  For example, the dying thief being crucified next to Jesus was fully and immediately forgiven upon his faith and repentance (Luke 23:39-43).
We are not justified because of the life that proceeds from our faith, we are justified the second we believe, the second we repent.  However, the evidence that someone has truly believed and truly repented is shown outwardly in the life that follows afterward.  But this life didn't earn forgiveness, it was the repentance and faith which gained them forgiveness as a free gift.  It is because we know that we are fully forgiven that we want to live uprightly and godly for such a loving merciful God.
The godly life that follows is far from perfect, and it does not contribute to our justification.  Justification is a legal term, meaning "to declare innocent".  In scripture it means not just to declare innocent (which is a neutral position, you don't deserve to be punished) but to declare fully righteous (which is a positively good state, to be as righteous as God). In justification the sinner is declared to be as righteous as God, deserving eternal life in Heaven.  Because the sinner trusts in Jesus everything that belongs to Jesus now is declared to belong to the sinner, (just like in a marriage).  As Martin Luther came to realize we are declared righteous when we believe in Jesus for "the just shall live by faith" (Romans 1:17); meaning, even though I see so much in me that is bad, I believe I am fully forgiven because Christ has paid the full price for all my sins: this faith leads to peace, joy, repentance, and a righteous life, (but not a perfectly sinless life).
I used to walk amongst charismatics but now am reformed baptist and sing a much more reverent style of worship in the congregation: but one charismatic song by Michael Ray sticks in the mindbecause it sums up so much with the right amount of joy for a true believer:
I Get So Excited, Lord,
Every Time I Realise
I’m Forgiven, I’m Forgiven.
Jesus, Lord, You’ve Done It All,
You’ve Paid The Price:
I’m Forgiven, I’m Forgiven.
(Look up the tune too on youtube.)

The joy of the LORD is your strength (Nehemiah 8:10).

It is the joy of being forgiven, because all our sins have been hurled into the depths of the sea (Micah 7:19), all our sins are sent away as far as the east is from the west (Psalm 103:12) upon our faith and repentance (Acts 16:31).  This joy is the spring board for godly living.
For a person to be forgiven they must repent.  If they repent they will be forgiven.  The repentance doesn't earn their forgiveness.. the forgiveness upon repentance is still God's free grace and free pardon.  What earns our pardon is Christ's merit alone.  The repentance that is being spoken of is the repentance of one who trusts that Jesus paid the full price for all their sin, and who believes that God merely asks for repentance... God doesn't ask that all that is done wrong be repaid for by us... we cannot pay it, nor restore all that was ruined, we have nothing to pay (though what we can fix/restore/repay we should).  All He asks is that we turn back to Him asking for forgiveness in Jesus's name, for His sake, and because He died to take all our punishment.
What is not being spoken of here is a perfect repentance or a turning back to perfection... our repentance will always be an imperfect repentance... it cannot earn grace.  Even after this repentance we will still need to pray "Give us today our daily bread and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive...".  There will still be trespasses needing to be forgiven.
This repentance happens when we realize how fallen, lost, and sinful we are, and cry out to God for his mercy because we know there is nothing else we can do.
A full repentance happens when we come to believe that God is truly merciful and loving.  "How could I have treated such a loving God and heavenly Father so badly as I have done up to now?"  Then we are truly sorry after we know we have been forgiven:

"They shall look upon him whom they have pierced and shall mourn as an only son, and shall be in bitterness for him as one that is in bitterness for [the death of] his firstborn."  (Zechariah 12:10).

What motivates this repentance is (belief in) the love of God:

We love because he first loved us. (1 John 4:19)

We repent because we believe in his amazing love for us.
"The soul that sins shall die" is a repeat of the warning given to Adam "in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die" (Genesis 2:17).
The sentiment of this passage is repeated in the New Testament:

The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord (Romans 6:23).

The Covenant of Works never offered forgiveness upon our repentance: it simply promises death (i.e. eternal punishment) for sin.  When a person repents they already deserve eternal hell because of sin, and nothing they do can change what they deserve.
A promise of forgiveness upon repentance can only be a gracious act of God falling within the terms of the Covenant of Grace.  The only way such a repentance can happen is when a person trusts in the mercy of God as it is offered through the Gospel, upon the merits of the blood if Jesus Christ.  Though that is not mentioned in the passage, what is stressed in the passage is the goodness of God in forgiving a sinner merely upon his repentance... other passages already written, such as Isaiah 53, give the reason why God can show such grace, what is the ground of such mercy without destroying God's justice.
Suppose I said to a grown man and a little child "If you come round to my house and knock on the door I will give you a million pounds." The grown man scoffs and  says he is not such a fool as to be taken in by that, so he doesn't knock on my door, unbelief stops him being blessed; but the little child believes me and comes round and knocks on my door.  And I give the little child a million pounds.  The child didn't earn a million pounds by coming round, it was a gift: but he still had to believe me and then come.
And so it is with the two things needed for salvation/forgiveness, faith and repentance: we have to believe what God says and then do what He says which is repent/turn back to him from our sinful ways.  But such believing and repenting don't earn our forgiveness, they cannot... salvation is always a free gift of the grace of God. And all we have to do for it is believe and repent: so little to do for so much blessing!


According to Trinitarianism, should prayers always be directed at one Person at a time, or can we pray to the whole Trinity simultaneously? According to Trinitarianism, is it valid to pray to God "in general" (the whole Godhead) without specifying the Person (Father, Son or Holy Spirit), or should we always be explicit about which Person we are specifically directing the prayer to?

Jesus taught his disciples how to pray:

Pray then like this: “Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name... (Matthew 6:9)

In other words, we pray to God the Father (Abba, Father).
“Hallowed be your name” tells us to worship God, and to praise Him for who He is.
Since there has only ever been the One Being of God, in whom subsist the three personages of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, when we pray to God we are praying to all three.
Our prayers are specifically directed to God the Father.  We pray in the name of Jesus, and it is the power of the Holy Spirit that intercedes for us when we struggle to know how to express ourselves:

In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness.  We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express.  And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God's will. (Romans 28:26-27)

When I pray to the Father, I remember to always thank Him for the greatest gift possible, that of His Son, and also to thank Him for the Holy Spirit which He sent to help us. However, I address my prayer specifically to our Father God in heaven.


How was Jesus able to be heard when preaching? During Jesus’s time when he preached to thousands of people with his disciples how were people able to hear him?  I mean at that time there were no microphones or speakers. How were people able to hear him considering many times he preached to thousands of people at once?

Learning to "project" is a skill. Additionally, when there are no PA systems, people learn where is a good place to speak, and where isn't.

Both the Greeks and Romans built amphitheaters for various purposes, and a hillside can be used as a natural amphitheater. With practice it isn't hard to address over 1,000 people -- the largest group I've ever spoken to without amplification was about 4,000 people.


According to proponents of transubstantiation, in what sense is Jesus present "where two or three are gathered"? Matthew 18:20 is commonly referenced to refer to Christ's presence among his people:

  For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.

For advocates of the "spiritual presence" view of communion, this verse is commonly understood as referring to the presence of the Spirit of Jesus, that is, the Holy Spirit.  For example, John Wesley:

  That is, to worship me. I am in the midst of them - By my Spirit, to quicken their prayers, guide their counsels, and answer their petitions.

However, I'd like to know if those who believe in transubstantiation – Catholics and Eastern Orthodox – take a similar approach to this passage.  According to that doctrine, if I understand correctly, the "substance" or "essence" of Christ's body is present in the Eucharist.

Based on this I see three ways that proponents of transubstantiation could interpret this passage:

Christ is "among them" through his Spirit (agreeing with the spiritual presence view)
Christ is "among them" physically, with the necessary implication that the "two or three" have celebrated the Lord's supper
Christ is "among them" physically, without any celebration of the Lord's supper.

This would imply that the "substance" of Christ can exist in more than just his heavenly body and the communion elements.

Of course, my rudimentary understanding of Catholic/Orthodox doctrine on this point is probably confusing the issue, and may be preventing me from seeing a fourth option here.  Basically, my question boils down to: in what way is Christ present where two or three are gathered – physically or through his Spirit?

Although you are directing your question specifically towards Roman Catholics, I would point out that Eastern Orthodox also believe in transubstantiation as you define it, although different terms are sometimes used.  So I will also comment on your question from an Eastern Orthodox perspective (to the best of my ability, God being my helper).

In answer to your title question, "According to proponents of transubstantiation, in what sense is Jesus present 'where two or three are gathered'?", I would say that this verse (Matthew 18:20) is not related to transubstantiation, so that the answer to the actual question, "In what sense is Jesus present 'where two or three are gathered'?", does not depend on any doctrine concerning transubstantiation.

It is important to realize that Matthew 18:20 is part of a broader set of instructions that the Lord gives specifically to the Apostles.  These begin with His instruction that if a brother who has sinned against one will not accept admonishment from the one he sinned against, with witnesses if necessary, then he is to be taken to the Church (Matthew 18:15-17), where whatever the Apostles declare regarding the matter shall also be bound in heaven (Matthew 18:18).  Verses 19 and 20 are a continuation of verse 18:

  Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.For where two or
  three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Many contemporary Christians in the Protestant tradition argue that there is no need for any formal "Church", because of what the Lord says Matthew 18:20.  I have heard it said, for example, "I had coffee with another Christian.  We just had Church."  This ignores, however, the context that the Lord set, as witnessed in the previous five verses.

The misinterpretation of this passage is not new.  In the 3rd century, Cyprian of Carthage wrote:

  Nor let any deceive themselves by a futile interpretation, in respect
  of the Lord having said, “Wheresoever two or three are gathered
  together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” Corrupters and
  false interpreters of the Gospel quote the last words, and lay aside
  the former ones, remembering part, and craftily suppressing part: as
  they themselves are separated from the Church, so they cut off the
  substance of one section. For the Lord, when He would urge unanimity
  and peace upon His disciples, said, “I say unto you, That if two of
  you shall agree on earth touching anything that ye shall ask, it shall
  be given you by my Father which is in heaven. For wheresoever two or
  three are gathered together in my name, I am with them;” showing that
  most is given, not to the multitude, but to the unanimity of those
  that pray. “If,” He says, “two of you shall agree on earth:” He placed
  agreement first; He has made the concord of peace a prerequisite; He
  taught that we should agree firmly and faithfully. But how can he
  agree with any one who does not agree with the body of the Church
  itself, and with the universal brotherhood? How can two or three be
  assembled together in Christ’s name, who, it is evident, are separated
  from Christ and from His Gospel? For we have not withdrawn from them,
  but they from us; and since heresies and schisms have risen
  subsequently, from their establishment for themselves of diverse
  places of worship, they have forsaken the Head and Source of the
  truth. But the Lord speaks concerning His Church, and to those also
  who are in the Church He speaks, that if they are in agreement, if
  according to what He commanded and admonished, although only two or
  three gathered together with unanimity should pray—though they be only
  two or three—they may obtain from the majesty of God what they ask.
  “Wheresoever two or three are gathered together in my name, I,” says
  He, “am with them;” that is, with the simple and peaceable—with those
  who fear God and keep God’s commandments. With these, although only
  two or three, He said that He was, in the same manner as He was with
  the three youths in the fiery furnace; and because they abode towards
  God in simplicity, and in unanimity among themselves, He animated
  them, in the midst of the surrounding flames, with the breath of dew:
  in the way in which, with the two apostles shut up in prison, because
  they were simple-minded and of one mind, He Himself was present; He
  Himself, having loosed the bolts of the dungeon, placed them again in
  the market-place, that they might declare to the multitude the word
  which they faithfully preached. When, therefore, in His commandments
  He lays it down, and says, “Where two or three are gathered together
  in my name, I am with them,” He does not divide men from the Church,
  seeing that He Himself ordained and made the Church; but rebuking the
  faithless for their discord, and commending peace by His word to the
  faithful, He shows that He is rather with two or three who pray with
  one mind, than with a great many who differ, and that more can be
  obtained by the concordant prayer of a few, than by the discordant
  supplication of many.

In answer to the summary question, "in what way is Christ present where two or three are gathered – physically or through his Spirit?", I think that would depend on whether the Eucharist was being celebrated or not as well as, most importantly, the will of God.  God being God, He could make Himself physically present at will, and has in the past, as Cyprian recounts in the story of the three holy children (although He was not recognized at the time).  But in the context of the "transubstantiation", I would say that we only expect the Lord to be physically present in the form of His Body and Blood at the Eucharist.  In other words, it is not the two or three gathering together in His name that effects His physical presence, but rather the epiclesis during the Divine Liturgy - the point at which the priest (or hierarch) prays the same words used by the Orthodox Church since at least the fourth century: "Make this bread the precious Body of Thy Christ; and that which is in this cup, the precious Blood of Thy Christ; changing them by Thy Holy Spirit" (Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom).


Anah contradictions in Genesis First I am going to post these 3 verses from Genesis (King James Bible):

Genesis 36:2 :

  Esau took his wives of the daughters of Canaan; Adah the daughter of Elon the Hittite, and Aholibamah the daughter of Anah the daughter of Zibeon the Hivite;

Genesis 36:24 :

  And these are the children of Zibeon; both Ajah, and Anah: this was that Anah that found the mules in the wilderness, as he fed the asses of Zibeon his father.

Genesis 36:20 :

  These are the sons of Seir the Horite, who inhabited the land; Lotan, and Shobal, and Zibeon, and Anah

So I have two questions regarding these verses:

1- Is Anah a he or she? In the first verse Anah is referred to as the daughter of Zibeon and in the second verse Anah is referred as a he.

2- Is Zibeon the father of Anah? In the first two verses it is mentioned that he is the father but in the last verse it seems that they are brothers!

Its really not that difficult. At that time in Israel she would have been considered the daughter of both he genetic father and his genetic father. It was common practice to list the names of genetic fatherhood for several generations. There are many instances of that in the Old Testament. In the book of Ruth you will find her listed as the daughter of Mordaci; even  though he was actually her uncle.

Since Anah was a common name listing the genealogy of the individual was a way of describing the particular individual. That is the reason for the listing of Zibeon as Anah's father in 36:24; and Sier as the father in 36:20. Quite simply they are two different individuals.

Hope this helps.


Longevity of biblical manuscripts The manuscript autographs of the gospels and epistles have perished or been lost. How long would the average autograph last before it perished or became unreadable? Take Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians as an example. It is thought to have been written sometime around 55 AD. No doubt, it would have been well looked after by the Church in Corinth, and many copies made. Given normal use, and a natural desire to preserve the autograph, is it reasonable to assume that it was still readable after 50 years? After 100 years? Longer, perhaps?

Edit:
There is an answer here:
"How Long Were Late Antique Books in Use? Possible Implications for New Testament Textual Criticism" by CRAIG A. EVANS
Bulletin for Biblical Research
Vol. 25, No. 1 (2015), pp. 23-37
See https://www.jstor.org/stable/26371610?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Abstract: "Recent study of libraries and book collections from late antiquity has shown that literary works were read, studied, annotated, corrected, and copied for two or more centuries before being retired or discarded. Given that there is no evidence that early Christian scribal practices differed from pagan practices, we may rightly ask whether early Christian writings, such as the autographs and first copies of the books that eventually would be recognized as canonical Scripture, also remained in use for 100 years or more. The evidence suggests that this was in fact the case. This sort of longevity could mean that at the time our extant Greek NT papyri were written in the late second and early to mid-third centuries, some of the autographs and first copies were still in circulation and in a position to influence the form of the Greek text."

Evans says the evidence suggests that autographs remained in use for 100 years or more, and perhaps as long as two centuries.

I accept Evans' answer as reasonable. Does anyone have other information?

As there are no further responses, I will close this question. It seems likely that autograph manuscripts of the NT were in use for 100 years or longer. Refer to "How Long Were Late Antique Books in Use? Possible Implications for New Testament Textual Criticism" by CRAIG A. EVANS Bulletin for Biblical Research Vol. 25, No. 1 (2015), pp. 23-37 See https://www.jstor.org/stable/26371610?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents