Christian description of "self-love" (from Matthew 22) Matthew 22:

  39 And the second command is like the first: ‘Love your neighbor
  the same as you love yourself.

Self love, esteem, worth, etc are matters of the spirit and personality - that are foundations for how we live our lives.

What is the description of self-love Christians are expected to have for themselves and their neighbors?

Another issue, what is meant by this in a society where self love is low or rare (and why wasn't that considered when Jesus said this)?

Before getting into the details of what I've been taught on the subject, for those that don't know, we should first establish the three types of love in common Christian teaching.  They are based on the Greek words used that are commonly translated as love.

phileo - properly, to show warm affection in intimate friendship, characterized by tender, heartfelt consideration and kinship.
eros - romantic love
agape - properly, love which centers in moral preference. So too in secular ancient Greek, 26 (agápē) focuses on preference; likewise the verb form (25 /agapáō) in antiquity meant "to prefer"

Agape love is considered the purest form of love. To prefer another is to put their needs ahead of your own, and to esteem them higher than others.  It is the type of love that we are to have for others, but it's the rarest.  It's the type of love that motivates us to willingly lose our lives for those that we love.  A parent sacrificing their life so save a child, for example, or Christ's love for us.

The word that's translated as "love" here is the agape love.

Given that, the principle is that we are to put our neighbors first - to prefer them the way we normally prefer ourselves.

You mentioned in the question that there is little self-love these days.  That depends entirely on how you define love.  Of the three forms, eros and phileos deal with how we feel.  Agape deals with how we behave toward another.  Agape love is a choice and an action, while the other two are simply feelings, which can change.  Generally speaking, agape love is unconditional, and the other two are conditional.  We feel them because being with someone makes us feel good.  When we no longer feel those feelings, we say we fall out of love.

It's this understanding of love that prompts the phrase "Love is a choice, not a feeling".

When you think about it, for the most of us, barring those that are filled with enough self-loathing to resort to self-mutilation or suicide, most of us put our own needs first most of the time, even if we don't particularly feel good about ourselves.

We eat, rather than starve. We fight to survive in life-threatening situations.  We value our own opinions over other people's opinions.  We'd rather have our own way, even if we let others have theirs.  In general, whether we do so outwardly we think more about our own needs than we do about the needs of others.  In short, we are selfish.  It's human nature.

And we these things because because we value ourselves.  Whether we like to admit it or not, we prefer ourselves over others most of the time.  Just like we prefer ourselves over God.  "I don't feel like going to Church.  I have too much to do to waste time in prayer", etc.

This verse speaks to that and says "Don't be like that.  Instead of saying I'd love to help you move, but I have to (Fill in the blank) Instead of thinking of what you want to do, think of your neighbor's needs and prefer (agape love) them.  Help them at your own sacrifice."

Perhaps put more simply:

The one who says "I'd love to help you but I need to XXXXXXXX" is preferring himself.  Putting his own needs above the one who needs help.

The one who says "Can I help you" when they have something else they'd rather be doing, even (or especially) if what they'd rather be doing is a true need is preferring (agape loving) their neighbor as he would love himself.

It's actually just another form of the golden rule.  Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

A shorter version can be found in Clarke's Commentary on the Bible

  The love of our neighbor springs from the love of God as its source; is
  found in the love of God as its principle, pattern, and end; and the
  love of God is found in the love of our neighbor, as its effect,
  representation, and infallible mark. This love of our neighbor is a
  love of equity, charity, succor, and benevolence. We owe to our
  neighbor what we have a right to expect from him - "Do unto all men as
  ye would they should do unto you," is a positive command of our
  blessed Savior. By this rule, therefore, we should speak, think, and
  write, concerning every soul of man: - put the best construction upon
  all the words and actions of our neighbor that they can possibly bear.
  By this rule we are taught to bear with, love, and forgive him; to
  rejoice in his felicity, mourn in his adversity, desire and delight in
  his prosperity, and promote it to the utmost of our power: instruct
  his ignorance, help him in his weakness, and risk even our life for
  his sake, and for the public good. In a word, we must do every thing
  in our power, through all the possible varieties of circumstances, for
  our neighbors, which we would wish them to do for us, were our
  situations reversed.

  This is the religion of Jesus! How happy would Society be, were these
  two plain, rational precepts properly observed! Love Me, and love thy
  Fellows! Be unutterably happy in me, and be in perfect peace,
  unanimity, and love, among yourselves. Great fountain and dispenser of
  love! fill thy creation with this sacred principle, for his sake who
  died for the salvation of mankind!


Why do people call Mary Magdalene the "Black Madonna"? Today I heard something most peculiar, and was wondering if there is a Biblical basis and/or if there were other denominations that teach this.

An older gentleman whom I know very well, and almost think of as a father, during a discussion about Mary Magdalene said (verbatim):

  Oh, well you see - some call her the "Black Madonna." (Because we had talked about theories as to whether her and Jesus could have been married - though this is irrelevant to the question at hand)

This is a most perplexing "revelation" to me, knowing that Biblically we know that Mary was saved from a life of sin to serve Jesus Christ.

I've looked all over the internet, and the most I can find about anything "Black Madonna" related is depictions of Mary, Mother of Jesus as a black woman.

What is the basis for this teaching? Is there any Biblical basis it? What groups teach it today?

Mary Magdalene is known as the "Black Madonna" and conflated with a fertility goddess (Isis, the Black Goddess) in Gnostic thought, popular among Templars and Cathars back in the day and with more written about it in the Gnostic Gospels found more recently at Nag Hammadi. You can read an article about the Gnostic cult of Mary Magdalene here.


How do the merits of the Saints in Heaven operate? The Catholic Church teaches that saints in Heaven can no longer merit.

So I was wondering if their merits run out at some point and how that works out for them. Related to this question, I want to know if the saints in Heaven are elevated to higher levels of intercession(power and frequency) based on how often or how fervently they are invoked to help the saints on Earth, this would be some kind of alternative to the system of merits when their merits would theoretically run out if they do.

The Catechism of the Church States

  "The 'treasury of the Church' is the infinite value, which can never be exhausted, which Christ's merits have before God.

The idea that a Saint Merits anything on there own is the issue here.  Many outside the Church believe for example that a Catholic Christian does some kind of work to earn Merit for salvation.  Merit however has more to do with Penance.  To understand fully how the Sacrament of Reconciliation works can be found in the CCC.

All works done by the Saints or Christians (Catholics) are done united to the Merit of Christ on the Cross,  which is infinite.

Collosians 1:24

  Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the Church

There is of course nothing Lacking in Christ afflictions, He has completed the redemption of the world, every living person past present and future.  What is lacking is not of Christ but of our participation in that redemptive work. Participation means of course, things that we "do".   A person might say "There is nothing you can do to be saved" and strictly speaking there is nothing (Strictly) that we can do.  Then a Catholic Christian could say biblically, "That I must do(Condignly) this is or that in union with Christ in order to be saved"

Matthew 6:19-21

Treasures in Heaven

  “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

Our Merit is Condign merit not strict merit.  United to Christ our merit is pleasing to God.

So, the difficulty is here is in separating the our works from that of Christ, Works done for our own Glory, is like filthy rags, but work done in union with Christ is treasure. There is no end to that merit once united to the work on the Cross.


What is the meaning behind this coin of Pope St. John Paul II? I have in my possession a big coin in a nice box with the papal heraldry of Pope St. John Paul II.

I am very curious Where this coin came from and why this coin exists.

I have found many different pictures but none like the one I have.
This is the entire object photographed.

It seems my Grandfather and his brother who was a man of the cloth himself have been to Rome and may have gotten it in Vatican City. I found a photobook with pictures of him on St. Peter's Square and pictures of the Pope he made.  (I cannot say which pope or time)

When visiting Rome, it is quite a common thing to see pilgrims and tourists buying souvenirs either close to the Vatican or right in Vatican City itself.

Buying a souvenir of the reigning Sovereign Pontiff is very popular when near the Vatican. Traditionally any medal of a reigning pope will have his image on one side. In the case of the medallion at hand it is of Pope John Paul II with the inscription: "Ioannes Paulus II Pont[ifex] Max[imus]"  which simply means "John Paul II Supreme Pontiff".

Medallions showing the image of Saints Peter and Paul (the two great Apostles of Rome) on the reverse side are still somewhat common. I am confident that this is what is portrayed on this medal as both person portrayed are bare foot and are bearded. Underneath the two Apostles of Rome one can read the inscription: S. Johnson (the artist who designed this particular medal). I have several such medallions of previous popes.

Medallions of with the images Saints Peter and Paul have been around since the third century.

  The 1911 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia verifies the authenticity of this bronze medallion and identifies other sources for the likenesses of Saints Peter and Paul. This bronze medallion is  in the Vatican Museum in Rome.

  The medallion is unique, not only because of its age, but for its iconography; for it shows us the typical images of Peter and Paul that we know through our Church’s sacred art. St Paul (on the left) is portrayed with bald head and full beard, and St. Peter is portrayed with a full head of hair and a full beard. - 3rd Century Bronze Medallion of Saints Peter and Paul


Why Jesus taught differently on “sin and treating sinners” as compared to Old Testament? In the book of Joshua, just before attack on Jericho, Joshua told his men not to take any riches for themselves which was meant for God. Joshua 6:18 . In spite of this Achan hides some of the riches for himself. On God’s directive Joshua orders his punishment by stoning him and all of his household to death Joshua 7:25

In similar manner in Old Testament we come across much harsher punishment for wrong doing than what it is now. We find that OT commanded death penalty for many acts: Murder (Ex, 21.12), kidnapping (Ex. 21.16), bestiality (Ex. 22.19), Adultery (Lev. 20.10), homosexuality (Lev. 20.13), Being false prophet (Deu. 13.5) Prostitution and rape (Deu. 22.24) etc.

In contrast to this, Jesus showed much greater mercy for breaking such commandments. On one hand we find that compared to Old law, Jesus fine tunes the interpretation of sin (Matt. 5:21-22, Matt. 5:27-28 etc) and yet when it comes to application of justice shows more mercy and love (Matt. 5:38-39, 5:43-44 so on).

If one takes an overview on “sin and treating sinners” in New Testament, we find that Jesus increases the measuring scale by which a person is judged guilty and yet by doing so, advocated more lenient justice system.

Why Jesus advocated this change from Old Testament?

In the 10th chapter of The Pursuit of God, A. W. Tozer says this:

  Here are the facts as I see them. For four hundred years Israel had dwelt in Egypt, surrounded by the crassest idolatry. By the hand of Moses they were brought out at last and started toward the land of promise. The very idea of holiness had been lost to them. To correct this, God began at the bottom. He localized Himself in the cloud and fire and later when the tabernacle had been built He dwelt in fiery manifestation in the Holy of Holies. By innumerable distinctions God taught Israel the difference between holy and unholy. There were holy days, holy vessels, holy garments. There were washings, sacrifices, offerings of many kinds. By these means Israel learned that God is holy. It was this that He was teaching them. Not the holiness of things or places, but the holiness of Jehovah was the lesson they must learn.

Thus, the Law was partly intended to teach the Israelites - who followed the Most Holy God - what was holy and what was not. Like you mention, Jesus took this one step further and made clear that sin included not just one's external actions but also one's own inner, private thoughts. Basically, He took the Law that was extremely hard to keep (being a full-time job) and made it effectively impossible to keep.

The Law that God gave Moses was also part of the covenant between God and Israel. This site covers the topic nicely and succinctly, but to summarize: 1) the Israelites' end of the agreement was to follow the Law completely, 2) God described in great detail how He would punish the nation if they failed to keep the Law, and 3) God promised to establish a new covenant.

As shown in Judges, Israel got themselves into a cycle of falling into idolatry, getting punished, crying out to God for help and repenting, being rescued, having a good time and worshiping God, and then falling back into idolatry a generation or two later. Every time the Israelites disregarded the Law and God's commands, people died. Every time a person was caught willfully breaking the Law, they died.

The Law brings death, not life.

  2 Corinthians 3:6 (NIV)

  6 He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

God, being who He is, couldn't very well let this go on forever. And so, He sent His Son Jesus, who is life, life, life! Jesus came so the Father could show mercy, which is repeatedly mentioned throughout the New Testament.

On one hand, Jesus made the Law even harder to follow, effectively impossible to keep perfectly. That was to show that no one can satisfy God and His commands completely. On the other hand, Jesus also came to establish a new covenant, and it is one we keep not by good works, but by faith. Thus, peoples' actions mattered less than their hearts for Him. That was why He advocated a more-lenient justice system, one that included forgiveness.

God promised to the Israelites a new covenant, Jesus came to establish it, and in the process, made the old one, the Law, obsolete.

  Hebrews 8:13 (NIV)
  13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

In summary, the reasons Jesus advocated these changes from the Old Testament that you mentioned are: 1) to make the Law effectively impossible to keep and 2) to show mercy and give life, and in the process of doing so, He made obsolete the Law based on works and instituted a new one based on faith.


Are blue rosary beads based on blue ribband (tzitzit) from Numbers 15? Are blue rosary beads based on blue ribband (tzitzit) from Numbers 15?
Numbers 15:38-39 (KJV):

"38 Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them fringes in the borders of their garments throughout their generations, and that they put upon the fringe of the borders a ribband of blue:
39 And it shall be unto you for a fringe, that ye may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of the Lord, and do them"

Are blue rosary beads based on blue ribband (tzitzit) from Numbers 15?
The short answer is no.
Blue is simply a Marian colour.
The colour blue is simply the traditional colour of the Virgin Mary from about the the year 500 on.
For example the colour blue in Mary’s mantle seems to have originated around the year 500 AD and is of Byzantine origin. Most sources seem to point to this date as the Byzantine origin of the color blue of Mary's mantle.

Why Does the Blessed Virgin Mary Wear Blue?
In many artistic portraits of the Blessed Virgin Mary, she is depicted wearing a blue mantle. Why blue?
In first century Galilee, Mary’s clothing would probably not have much color. It would have been more flaxen-wool colored. Villagers may have used available plants to produce some modest dyes. Purple and blue were reserved for the rich and ruling classes because plants for those dyes were more rare. Red was used for the Roman army because plants producing red dyes were readily available.
As Mary has appeared throughout the centuries, she has worn different colors and styles of clothing.
•Our Lady of Fatima (1917) appeared to the children wearing a gown and mantle of white with gold trim and a crown.
•Our Lady of Lourdes (1858) appeared to Bernadette wearing a simple gown and mantle of white with a blue sash.
•Our Lady of Guadalupe (1531) appeared to Juan Diego wearing a gown of rose and a mantle of blue with gold stars.
Fr Johann Roten SM, director of the Marian Library-International Marian Research Institute at the University of Dayton (a Catholic college) wrote: “Mary’s dark blue mantle, from about 500 AD is of Byzantine origin and is the color of an empress.”
Blue has been a color associated with royalty, peace, and nature (sea and sky). So it makes sense that artistic renditions of Mary portray the Queen of Heaven and Earth in blue.


Is the wages of sin our natural death? Does anyone else believe that our natural deaths are not the punishment for sin? Id always thought it odd that if our natural deaths were the punishment for sin, then why would God raise everyone for judgment Hebs 9:27 resulting in some dying again? Rev 20:6,13-15. Especially as we're told that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, Ezekiel 18:23,32. Maybe Adam and Eve were created mortal? It's been suggested that Adam and Eve did not receive the immediate punishment for their sin ("in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die") because God killed an animal/animals instead, and covered them with the skins to show that their sin had been 'covered'. So according to this idea, their nature did not fall but remained the same. However the thing that did change was their relationship with God and from then on the Devil was their master, as they had chosen him over God - and he has had sway as "the ruler of this world" (John 12:31; 16:11) ever since. It is true I believe, that the Bible does not say that Adam and Eves nature 'fell', or refer to human nature as having 'fallen'. I could say more. But I'd like to hear thought through comments on what I've already said. I'm no longer certain of what I believe, myself! I'm looking for answers to consider.

Concerning a fallen nature:

16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any
tree of the garden, 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil, for on the day you eat from it, you will
certainly die.” (Genesis 2:16-17)

One way of looking at God's command is to combine it with this:

For in Your sight a thousand years are like yesterday that passes by,
like a few hours of the night. (Psalm 90:4)

which is repeated here:

Dear friends, don’t let this one thing escape you: With the Lord one
day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. (2
Peter 3:8)

So Adam and Eve did die on the same "day" that they ate of the fruit, if that day is taken figuratively to be a thousand years. A second example of this principle is found in the story of Noah:

6 When mankind began to multiply on the earth and daughters were born
to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of mankind were
beautiful, and they took any they chose as wives for themselves. 3 And
the Lord said, “My Spirit will not remain with mankind forever,
because they are corrupt. Their days will be 120 years.” (Genesis 6:1-3)

Biblical genealogies show that people after Noah still live much longer than 120 years, but the maximum ages steadily declined. However, if you follow the chronologies forward 1,000 years from that statement, you get to a point a decade or two after the death of Moses. Moses died at age 120 years. Nobody in the Bible after Moses ever again lived longer than 120 years.
So Adam and Eve went from immortal, to mortal with a lifespan of up to a thousand years, and their descendamts eventually to a lifespan no greater than 120 years. This shows a progressive corruption of the human genome, a physical manifestation of a changed nature, which presumably has a spiritual component as well, as claimed by the Apostle Paul in his writings, when he talks about the "flesh" or "sin nature".
As an interesting scientific aside, consider this command:

Do not make an idol for yourself, whether in the shape of anything in
the heavens above or on the earth below or in the waters under the
earth. 5 You must not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the
Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the
fathers’ sin, to the third and fourth generations of those who hate
Me, 6 but showing faithful love to a thousand generations of those who
love Me and keep My commands. (Exodus 20:4-6)

It has recently been shown that acquired characteristics related to the environment may be passed down from parents to children via "epigenetic" markers. These markers, if not reinforced by the children, fade after three to four generations. So a trait like susceptibility to alcoholism can be passed down to children of alcoholics due to their parent's bad choices, but it will diminish over the generations if the children and grandchildren choose to reject that habit.
As an example of this working out in the Bible, Cain slew his brother Abel; several generations later, Cain's descendant Lamech was also a murderer.
As one final statement about the nature of man, consider what Solomon, the wisest man to ever live (besides Jesus) said:

Only see this: I have discovered that God made people upright, but
they pursued many schemes.” (Ecclesiastes 7:29)

Concerning the "resurrection of the damned".
God cannot contradict himself. He promised to hold a trial for everyone who ever lived:
A river of fire was flowing,
coming out from His presence.
Thousands upon thousands served Him;
ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him.
The court was convened,
and the books were opened. (Daniel 7:10)

And later:

11 Then I saw a great white throne and One seated on it. Earth and
heaven fled from His presence, and no place was found for them. 12 I
also saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the
throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the
book of life, and the dead were judged according to their works by
what was written in the books.
13 Then the sea gave up its dead, and Death and Hades gave up their
dead; all were judged according to their works. (Revelation 20:11-13)

Since God promises a trial, everyone must appear in court, and if you are a corpse in the ground, how can you hear the charges? How can you be made aware of the judgment? These two realities - death for sin and a conscious judgment - require that all people be resurrected, prior to sentencing. Trials in absentia are not a thing in the Bible, as Job insisted:
How often is the lamp of the wicked put out?
Does disaster come on them?
Does He apportion destruction in His anger?
18 Are they like straw before the wind,
like chaff a storm sweeps away?
19 God reserves a person’s punishment for his children.
Let God repay the person himself, so that he may know it.
20 Let his own eyes see his demise;
let him drink from the Almighty’s wrath!
21 For what does he care about his family once he is dead,
when the number of his months has run out? (Job 21:17-21)

Job insists that for justice to be properly served, the guilty must see his punishment with his own eyes and see it to come from the hand of God. And when God answered Job, he said:

7 After the Lord had finished speaking to Job, He said to Eliphaz the
Temanite: “I am angry with you and your two friends, for you have not
spoken the truth about Me, as My servant Job has. (Job 42:7)

God agreed with Job about the need for a trial (and many other things).


Do Paul's and Jesus' use of epithets and culturally-harsh criticisms mandate/approve our own? Not to be confused with this closed question, is our use of cultural criticisms (eg some from the list of Carlin's 7 words) approved\allowed\encouraged because Jesus (and later Paul) used cultural equivalents?

For example, Jesus called the Scribes and Pharisees "hypocrites" several times during His ministry (Matthew 15, 22, 23, Luke 12, etc).

Wikipedia points-out:

  hypokrites was a technical term for a stage actor and was not considered an appropriate role for a public figure. In Athens in the 4th century BC, for example, the great orator Demosthenes ridiculed his rival Aeschines, who had been a successful actor before taking up politics, as a hypokrites whose skill at impersonating characters on stage made him an untrustworthy politician. This negative view of the hypokrites, perhaps combined with the Roman disdain for actors, later shaded into the originally neutral hypokrisis. It is this later sense of hypokrisis as "play-acting", i.e., the assumption of a counterfeit persona, that gives the modern word hypocrisy its negative connotation.

Being called a hypocrite was about as horrid an insult as one could level against a public figure in Christ's day.

Paul called the church in Corinth worse than the Gentiles, and arrogant.

Paul also called Peter effectively a Gentile, and frequently used the word "anathema" or "accursed" in his writings describing those who would pervert the Gospel for their own ends.

Were these merely cases of calling a spade a spade (regardless of the language chosen to do so), or is it an encouragement/permit to use similar language at least when confronting sin?

Sorry for the long post but the question is complex, so I have answered according to various aspects.

The Bible is pretty clear about using 'foul' language, but what is 'foul' is not always clear. However since the bible endorses brotherly love, if words that you feel free to say at home, offends someone at work, or church, then they should be said at home only.

  Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. (NIV Ephesians 5:4)

The new testament is never legalistic, so it expects each person to apply a verse like this and there is no need for others to define in great detail what it means by actually listing the words. Regarding Carlins 7 cuss words (I had to look that up) even most non-Christians would define most of them as obscenities.  Basically, if a teacher in a high school could get into trouble for saying a certain word every day in their regular teaching, it is probably viewed as an obscenity by a large population.

But all humor aside, I think the key idea with obscenity is that it offends.  Even if the Bible did not say, do not use offensive language, it is already given that we should do our utmost not to offend our brother. Obscenities are just those words, not evil in themselves, that are generally understood as offensive.  Of course many words lay on the border of offensive or non.  I am often surprise that some words I use, are considered offensive by some people at my own church.

What makes a word offensive? I think what happens is when we are bitter or angry in a sinful 'cursing' sense we tend to refer to certain word to express our wicked curse.  Although the words themselves could be said by a child without any anger at all, the frequency of their use as a continuer for wicked cursing, by wicked men, eventually bring about a strong cultural opposing to the word itself.  It is these word which would make our talk unwholesome and unloving.

Now as we approach sin, or things we can hate, while being a loving Christian, we are naturally wanting to use words that properly express our disgust.  These are the types of words that Jesus and thenApostle used. Non of these words were considered offensive, but being called by them, would obviously offend, but in a good way.  For example sinner is not a offensive word, but many would be offended if you came up to them and said, 'Hi, did you know you are are a wicked, blaspheming, sinner?'

So the only question remaining is when can we use words that although not offensive in themselves, are greatly offensive to those we use them?  I think this is something each person must decide according to their faith and proper evaluation of their own attitudes.  For example, at home I would say very sharp words about a certain Christian group. I would say they are mostly all deceived. Their leader is a devil.  They have always been filthy blasphemes who hate Christians, etc.  I would say that to my wife as she would not be offended.  At my church I would  not say these things so sharply, as I may offend.  At work I would not say them as it may be considered as harassment and even worth being disciplined.  I would not say these things on this website as it violates the purpose of the site.

Jesus, the Apostles and even regular Christians may be forced to publically use very offensive language because of what is at stake.  For example if false teachers, are deceiving members of a congregation, very harsh language may be needed to rebuke them.  If we just said, well they have their opinions, but we think we are right, others might think it is ok, to consider lies, in place of faith in Christ.  Since the stakes are so high, leaders may need to let people know, chose them, or chose us, there is no in between. One is good, the other is scum, one if righteous, the other wicked.  When it reaches climatic situations like this,** holy men will use the most offensive language, without ever needing to use words that are actually offensive in themselves.**


What is masturbation, according to the Catholic Catechism? By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure.

CCC 2352

So does this mean I need to buy extra gold bond medicated powder to avoid jock itch (and mortal sin), or is that just excessive scrupulosity?

The real question is, is the 'grave matter' involved in masturbation always involve ejaculation or does the offense against chastity lie in your intentions?  And the source of consternation in this is that in conjugal sex,  ejaculating outside of your wife is considered the 'grave matter' so I'd have to imagine the rationale for that being bad is totally different than the rationale for masturbation being sinful but I don't know why.

I must preface this with the fact that I'm not an expert on this subject (meaning the Catechism, not masturbation).

However, the text itself seems to show very clearly that it's the intention that matters ("in order to derive sexual pleasure."). Clearly, ejaculation isn't required, merely the act of beginning (or continuing) something that is pleasurable.

It seems clear that "deliberate stimulation" is the sin.  Meaning that it has to be deliberate and it has to be stimulating.  If you unintentionally stimulate yourself, it's not a sin.  Also, if you intentionally do something but it's not stimulating, that's also not a sin  (that would just be weird).

The definition seems obvious to me.

Having said this, the  culminating sentence of this section states:

  To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety, or other psychological or social factors that lessen or even extenuate moral culpability.

So while the definition is obvious and clear (per the question), there is some leniency given to this situation.


Why do some Advent calendars have days in random order? Some advent calendars, such as those made by LEGO are made with calendar days shown in a random order. Why is this?

There are two kinds of such calendars: ordered ones, and unordered ones meant as fun games, (or, I suppose, reminders of piety), where you have to search for the next one.

I'm actually not certain of the history of the latter, but it is common for promotional branded advent calendars. The typical example are those single-use calendars given as gifts that have a Christmas theme graphic on the front where you have to find the doors, windows, etc., hiding a chocolate or other treat.

On reading the Wikipedia article for advent calendars, they showed many examples of historical Nativity and Christmas winter scenes with unordered openings, so perhaps the unordered type are more "original."


What is the biblical basis for women being created in the image of God? This question is not made to defame Biblical doctrines or teachings, just a genuine curiosity that no one I talk to has an answer for.

Genesis 1:27 states "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him male and female created he them."

So when 'man' in the singular is mentioned, I saw that it was the historical use of 'mankind' or 'human' and the Bible referred to both man and woman collectively in the singular (conf. Genesis 5:2). But this explanation became confusing considering 1 Corinthians 11:4-13. I don't even understand what the image of God really means nevertheless. While it seems obvious that women are held in much higher respect in both the real world and the Bible than, say, animals and plants, there is also plenty of Bible to justify a subordination.

And when proponents for the view 'woman are not made in God's image' are brought up, they bring up passages like 1 Corinthians 11:4-13 and 14:34, as well as the fact that every church traditionally forbade women from ordination. Ultimately, I'd like to know what the Biblical basis is for the belief that women are made in God's image, in light of the restrictions set upon them.

Again, this is a real question not meant to defame anyone or belief and I am not advocating for any reform or anti-church political agenda. I am a God-fearing, albeit doctrinally-ignorant and confused, Christian.

Genesis 1:27:

וַיִּבְרָ֨א אֱלֹהִ֤ים אֶתהָֽאָדָם֙ בְּצַלְמ֔וֹ בְּצֶ֥לֶם אֱלֹהִ֖ים בָּרָ֣א אֹת֑וֹ זָכָ֥ר וּנְקֵבָ֖ה בָּרָ֣א אֹתָֽם׃
καὶ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον κατ’ εἰκόνα θεοῦ ἐποίησεν αὐτόν ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ ἐποίησεν αὐτούς
et creavit Deus hominem ad imaginem suam ad imaginem Dei creavit illum masculum et feminam creavit eos
So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

The word used in the original Hebrew (the first line) is transliterated ha-adam, men (as opposed to animals). Though it is grammatically masculine, it refers to the whole race, "male and female" ("zakar uneqebah"), as the verse explains.
You can see the translations to Greek, Latin and English (KJV), which all translate הָֽאָדָם֙ to words which mean "human" as opposed to "man": ἄνθρωπον and hominem. If a specifically male man were meant, the Sacred Authors would have used אּישׁ instead (as they do a few verses thence) and the translators would have used ἄνδρα and virum, respectively.
Regarding the ordination of women, the Holy Father St. John Paul II said that "the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful." The reason given is that "the example recorded in the Sacred Scriptures of Christ choosing his Apostles only from among men; the constant practice of the Church, which has imitated Christ in choosing only men; and her living teaching authority which has consistently held that the exclusion of women from the priesthood is in accordance with God's plan for his Church." The Orthodox hold to the same position for essentially the same reasons; Protestants who do exclude women from ordination would typically hold the same position, though they might quote a few NT verses to give it foundation: usually I Cor 14:33–35, I Tim 2:11–12, I Cor 11:13 and Eph 5:22–23.
In any event, it has nothing to do with whether woman was created in God's image or not, but rather Christ's example which has been followed from the Apostolic age.


What did God do to the Jews in Thessalonica? Paul is telling his Thessalonian buddies that God's wrath has come at last to the mean Jews (countrymen) nearby.

  1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 ESV For you, brothers, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea. For you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all mankind by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they might be saved—so as always to fill up the measure of their sins. But wrath has come upon them at last! But since we were torn away from you blah blah blah...

What wrath? From who? From God? The story of Paul in Thessalonica in Acts 17 doesn't show any retribution towards the persecuting Jews. What is Paul talking about?

From a straight-forward reading of First Thessalonians, it is hard to understand what wrath God wrought upon the Jews to such an extent that Paul would have expected his readers to understand just what he was alluding to. We need to think outside the box and consider that New Testament writings were often amended after they had been written.

It appears that 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 is widely regarded as an interpolation - see for example, An Introduction to the New Testament, pp 166, 463, by Raymond E. Brown. Its polemic against the Jews is quite at odds with Paul's usual treatment of the Jews and the fact that he, himself, was a proud Jew. It is consistent with late first-century condemnation of the Jews. The wrath of God is considered an unmistakeable allusion to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE, and the death of so many at Roman hands.


How does the Catholic Church narrate the seal which was put on the tomb of Jesus? We see  at Matt 27: 64-66 the Chief Priests and Pharisees getting permission to secure the tomb of Jesus :

"....Therefore command the tomb to be made secure until the third day; otherwise his disciples may go and steal him away, and tell the people, ‘He has been raised from the dead,’ and the last deception would be worse than the first.”  Pilate said to them, “You have a guard of soldiers; go, make it as secure as you can.”  So they went with the guard and made the tomb secure by sealing the stone. ""

In the account of Mark at 16:1-4, we get the narration of women disciples visiting   the tomb of Jesus :

"When the sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him.   And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb.   They had been saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance to the tomb?”   When they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had already been rolled back"

There is no mention of the `seal'which the High Priests and Pharisees put on the tomb of Jesus , in Mark's account which only mentions the large stone. One therefore, is left to presume that what Matthew meant by ``seal' is only the large stone which was guarded by soldiers, and that the preceding day of Resurrection having been the Sabbath day, nobody would have moved the stone  in order to anoint the  body of Jesus.
My question therefore, is: How does the Catholic Church narrate the seal which was put on the tomb of Jesus ?

How does the Catholic Church narrate the seal which was put on the tomb of Jesus?

The Catholic Church, like many other denominations, relies on archeological evidence to explain this matter.

The stone itself sealed the tomb!

  Mark 15:46 reads, “Then Joseph bought a linen cloth, and taking down the body, wrapped it in the linen cloth, and laid it in a tomb that had been hewn out of the rock. He then rolled a stone against the door of the tomb” (NRSV). The Greek verb used in the last sentence of this passage is proskulisas. Von Wahlde says, “This is a combination of pros (meaning ‘toward’) and the past participle of kulio (meaning ‘to roll or roll along’).”

  Mark 16:3 describes the scene on Easter Sunday when Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome visit Jesus’ tomb: “They had been saying to one another, ‘Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance to the tomb?’” The Greek word for “roll away” is apekulisen, which von Wahlde explains is “a combination of ap’ (meaning ‘away’) and … yes, kulio (meaning ‘to roll’).”

  The Gospels of Matthew and Luke use similar compounds of the verb kulio. Thus, all of these accounts imply that the stone sealing Jesus’ tomb was rolled. - How Was Jesus’ Tomb Sealed?

More information about this topic is available with the following articles:

Why was the stone in Jesus’tomb rolled out? (Catholic Answers
Holy Sepulchre (Catholic Encyclopaedia)


What is the New Testament "process" for doing a church plant? Given that new churches are to be started (eg the ministry of the Apostle Paul in partial fulfillment of the Great Commission), what is the New Testament model or process for how this should be done?

Does it vary culturally?

Can (or 'how can') one know when it is time to plant another church in the same town\region, and when to encourage people to come to an established local body?

Most specifically, I'm looking for models\processes surrounding "independent" or "non-denominational" churches - ie not Roman Catholic, Episcopalian, PCA, etc who all have formal processes for starting new churches.

Many independent churches first sprang up after the partial collapse of Catholicism during the reformation possibly using the very same New Testament guidelines and principles you seek. The most illuminating case know of that sheds light on the underpinning of New Testament principles at this time is the arguments between Anglican ministers and the independents which has been partially recorded in Johns Owens ‘A Brief Vindication of the Nonconformists from the Charge of Schism’, in Owen’s Works Volume 13.

The situation is very interesting because there was a vacuum created by so many exiting the Catholic church and the Pope’s loss of powers with various princes and Kings, that new or strengthened ‘state approved’ churches formed, or otherwise tried to extend their influence and power. However, as in the case of England, where Anglicanism was by no means newly formed, the established church with its ‘traditions’ wanted every Protestant in its ‘control’ and tried to repress the existence of independent churches. It was under these conditions that John Owen made his response to the Anglican accusation of unlawful and sinful schisms within the Church of England.
From the independent revolt of the Church of England you get the following New Testament guidelines that the independents argued:

1-State approved Churches carry no more authority than Christ approved churches:
The New Testament nowhere suggests that the church needs approval from government officials, therefore anyone trying to fuse church and state has no solid basis to present an argument apart from its claimed traditions.

2-Rather than external tradition the New testament established a rule of love and forbearance with one another who hold differing views on non-essential doctrines and practices: Those claiming the authority of tradition claim it was first handed down by the Apostles but if this was true it would be clearly defined in scripture due to its importance. In reality the Apostles formulated rules of ‘brother love’ while many traditions and ceremonies of the Jews were brought to a slow and graceful death. As the new church was a mixture of Jew and Gentile with some Jews having a weaker conscience concerning some matters such as eating meats sacrificed to idols, the Apostles asked those with free consciences to lovingly submit to meaningless rules so as not to offend their brother. (1 Cor. 8:13). However when a wicked Judaizer insisted that the free follow a particular tradition as necessary for living a godly life, even when the Apostles have already said it was not necessary, then Christians absolutely refused as it became no longer a harmless difference but an attack on the gospel. (Acts 16:3, Gal 2:3, 5:2). These principles can be used when any denomination tries to repress the formation of a church upon grounds of the tradition they hold, for the repression itself on these grounds constitutes a possible good reason for a separation.

3-The New Testament, shows that churches naturally sprang up wherever new groups of believers were formed, sometimes starting in peoples homes, and were never pressured to join under subjection to a ‘higher’ church or central authority. As these churches later fell into various forms of Apostasy they established their own conflicting traditions, not one universal tradition under an external rule, until later imposed by the Roman government. This free-forming tradition can be seen by the early division over whose tradition should be followed concerning Easter, as mentioned in this post.

4 The ideal church in not represented as a ‘mega-church’ or just a few members of a family but a reasonably sized group who by virtue of their differing gifts and in some matters differing ideas, are most suitable for the edification and strengthening in the faith of each member. (1 Corinthians 12:18-27). The reason why a family by itself is not a proper church is that members must be freely willing to join and it would not have a wide number of differing gifts unless that family was particularly large. The idea of a mega-church does not seem to suit the ideal New Testament model, for although 5000 were saved in one day, we have no records of a church that big assembling in the New Testament, rather churches sprouted up all over  like a natural vines growing around every natural turn and bend in the existing communities. (I am not saying churches can’t be huge or tiny, only that it does not seem ideal. Of course a mega-church can be divided into many smaller churches that just happen to meet in the same building). This sort of creates a flexible rule that if a church is made for believers (not believers made for churches) a church should bend its structure to best support the growth of believers. If a church is so large that intimate fellowship and properly organized teaching and administration becomes overly difficult, it should reasonably consider forming a new church (whether through subdividing itself, or finding a new location more suitable to many of its members).

5 A new church is not meant as a means to simply collect those who are merely argumentative, proud, or otherwise divisive over disputable matters. (Rom 14:1).  A great deal of Philippians’ seems to be related to having humility and striving towards the goal (Phil 3:12-17, 1 Cor 13:12) which includes a goal of a better understanding. While dodging those non-neutral attacks of our faith (Phil 3:2). We also must avoid useless divisions through modelling humility and love (Phil 4, Phil 2).  Since we have never arrived at a perfect understanding, we must allow the fact that everyone is at a different stage of progress and coming from different starting points, so we must chose to serve in such a way as to help each ‘child’ grow and ‘woe to him’ who causing the child to stumble. (Mark 9:42). We ourselves must be like children, not wondering how will be the greatest.

6  There may comes a point where a sincere believer or entire body can no longer in good conscience remain within a certain fellowship where disputable matters are no longer allowed to be left in love and humility, are enforced against the conscience of others. When an unnecessary saw of constant discord is swung back and forth between believers by argumentative leaders, or other situations arise, making it seem impossible to properly advance in one’s knowledge in Christian love and humility, believers may need to form new churches or join other ones. This has sometimes been the cause of why one party ‘breaks away’ from the traditions of another, because those holding the tradition become aggressive and seek to make everybody rankled over argumentative subjects without any pause for relief. This ungodly spirit of argumentation may even occur on this site, when we seek to only argue with a saw of contention (rather then passionately disagree) or seize upon ‘another’s expressions’ in a way that does not encourage their intended meaning, offering no support in humbly drawing it out to the edification of a very similar faith. It is best to avoid contact with those in such a state of mind for our own safety.

7 A church is meant to be established the same simple structure of New Testament church without additional layers of authority invented by men or tradition. This can be deduced from the fact that no such layers like ‘arch-teacher’, or ‘lord-deacon’, or whatever title might be created are not present in the New testament which opposes the spirit of humility and love as the true rule the Apostles established for church government. This means the roles of deacons or elders, as well as overseer, teacher and pastor must be established and then formed in the new church on order to have orderly worship as well as ensuring the observance of the Lord’s Supper and Baptism are administered. If there are not sufficiently qualified people with the necessary strengths to effectively support a healthy development of a believing body, this should not be attempted unless there are no other such churches within reasonable distance form ones own community.

I do not know if this answers your question as it is an unusually large question with many possible aspects to a solid answer, but this is all I can manage to collect.


Will people in hell be able to remember people in heaven? I've heard many times that once you go to heaven, you'll no longer remember your past life, or those that never made it to heaven.

Does the same apply in hell?

Yes, those in hell can remember their past life; no, I know for a fact (according to the Bible; if you don't consider the Bible a valid source, then I got nothin :) ) that it doesn't apply in either. (Didn't want to just say "yes" or "no" because that would have been ambiguous.)

In Luke 16:19-31, the rich man in hell pleads for Abraham to allow Lazarus, a man he knew during his time on earth (not the Lazarus in John 11), to bring him even a drop of water from heaven. Clearly, the rich man remembers Lazarus, even though he is in hell (and Lazarus is in heaven). Also, Abraham remembers not only the rich man's identity, but also the things he did. Also, since Abraham had likely never met the rich man or Lazarus during their earthly lives, we can assume that those in heaven also know/remember the people they did know on earth, regardless of the final destination (heaven or hell) of either. The rich man also remembers the people he left behind and begs Abraham to send someone to warn them about hell.

Additionally, the Bible says we will be rewarded in heaven for the things we do for Christ. I'm trying to imagine what it would be like if nobody remembered anything:

  God: Hey, great job. Here is your crown; it's got orange on it 'cause you really like orange. I really loved your dedication to Me in your workplace, even when it meant not getting that promotion.
  Person: ...Thank you? I don't know what any of this is for? (Neat. I guess I like orange.)

I feel like the passage about wiping tears away means that the things that pain and upset us now won't matter anymore in heaven, and not necessarily that we won't remember that they ever happened.

No matter what heaven's like, though, I'm sure God will get it just right :)


Did Jesus transform into spirit form after Resurrection In the 40 days after the Resurrection and before his Ascension, Jesus appears and disappears to people, including his disciples.

He also is not recognizable by some of his followers including Mary Magdalene at certain occasions until he identifies himself.

Is there any evidence or reason given on how Jesus' human form has now been enhanced with spirit-like powers?

Also - is there any information on whether Jesus stayed with his disciples or his mother during these 40 days, I saw this question, but I think there isn't any such information?

Probably the most definitive verse on this is in Luke:

36 While they were telling these things, He Himself stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be to you.” 37 But they were startled and frightened and thought that they were seeing a spirit. 38 And He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts?
39 See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” 40 And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet. 41 While they still could not believe it because of their joy and amazement, He said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” 42 They gave Him a piece of a broiled fish; 43 and He took it and ate it before them. Luke 24:36-42 NASB

Here Jesus affirms that a spirit does not have flesh and blood, but He Himself does.  To prove it, He tells His disciples to touch Him.  Then He provides another proof by taking a piece of broiled fish and eating it.  This is further proof because spirits do not and cannot eat physical food.
These appear to be just two of the many convincing proofs Luke mentions in the first chapter of Acts:

To these He also presented Himself alive after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God.  Acts 1:3 NASB

So, no, Jesus was not merely a spirit.  His resurrection was a bodily resurrection.  However, just as before the resurrection, He was Lord of Creation and could do miraculous things.


Is manhood defined in the Bible? I have recently started reasearching the differences and similarites between religion's and their definitions of manhood. I was very interested to find that this question had not been previously asked when I search manhood:

How should a man should conduct himself in modern society, according to scriptures in the Holy Bible?

And to Adam he said, "...cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; (Genesis 3:17) - Men are primarily responsible for working the earth for food.

  ...until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. (Ephesians 4:13, 14)

Men are not confused by every new religion or philosophy that comes around, but know Jesus are united with others who know him.

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

If a man is married, he should sacrifice his selfishness in the way he loves his wife.

  I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. (1 Corinthians 7:32)

If a man is un-married, his commitment should be to pleasing the Lord.

  Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. (Ephesians 6:4)

If a man has children, he is primarily responsible for instructing them in God's ways and correcting them when they go astray.


Did Christ have the freedom to choose to avoid crucifixion? Inspired by this answer, Jesus talks about this authority in John 10:18 (NIV):

  No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”

In precisely what sense does Jesus have this "authority?"  @Richard's answer (linked above), suggests that this means Christ had the authority to either lay down his life or not...  But that's not the only way we use the phrase "authority."

Consider a police officer with a warrant to arrest a suspect.  He knocks on the door and says "I have the authority to arrest you."  This doesn't imply that the officer has a choice in the matter.  He does have the authority to make the arrest, but he also has the obligation to make the arrest.  A failure to make the arrest (except for extenuating circumstances) would result in disciplinary action against the officer.

Did Christ really have "free will" in this matter?

In fact, Christ even says it's a command from His Father; which suggests that he did not have authority not to give up his life.

Yes.

Jesus' own words to Peter are relevant here:

  Matthew 26:52-54 (ESV)
   52 Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. 53  Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? 54  But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?"

The way I read it, Jesus genuinely had a choice to call out an army of angels that would have been enough for world domination.


Why was God not angry with Solomon's Census In 2 Chronicles 2:17 we are told "Solomon took a census of all the foreigners residing in Israel, after the census his father David had taken; and they were found to be 153,600." Why was God not angry about this Census, yet furious with David for taking a Census?

Maybe it was because Solomon took a census of all the foreigners, while David numbered the children of Israel without making this offering:

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, When thou takest the sum of the children of Israel after their number, then shall they give every man a ransom for his soul unto the LORD, when thou numberest them; that there be no plague among them, when thou numberest them. This they shall give, every one that passeth among them that are numbered, half a shekel after the shekel of the sanctuary: (a shekel is twenty gerahs:) an half shekel shall be the offering of the LORD. Every one that passeth among them that are numbered, from twenty years old and above, shall give an offering unto the LORD. The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less than half a shekel, when they give an offering unto the LORD, to make an atonement for your souls. [Exodus 30:11-15 KJV]

God wanted the children of Israel numbered only so that they would know how much to give to the Lord. David just wanted to know, with Satan's influence, how big his army was; he was putting his trust in his military might rather than in the promises of God.


Why did Jesus have to leave for the Holy Spirit to come? John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

Why did Jesus have to go in order for the Holy Spirit to come?
Also does this mean the Holy Spirit was not present before Jesus went away?

Understanding the second part of your question is the key to answering the first part.

Part One: (How the Spirit was with them before and after Jesus "going away")

In John 3:34, it is said of Christ that He had the Spirit of God "without measure". So as He was living on Earth as a perfect sinless man, Jesus had unlimited access to the Holy Spirit, who descended on Him to empower Him for ministry at His baptism. So the Holy Spirit was here, empowering Jesus Christ without measure.

In John 14:16-18, Jesus told the disciples, "you know him, for he dwells with you and shall be in you." So the Spirit of God was with the disciples, but He (the Spirit) was going to be with them and in them in a new way.

Now in the context of John 16:7, Jesus talks about "going away" through the crucifixion (John 16:19-22). But He speaks of the Comforter in ways that also refer to the Spirit's ministry after the ascension (John 16:13). If you think about it, Jesus actually went away from the disciples twice: once for 3 days and nights from death to resurrection, and once at the ascension. There are two "going aways", and there are two events involving the Holy Spirit that are mentioned after each of those "going aways".

First event:

After the crucifixion and resurrection, in the upper room, Jesus breathes on them and says "receive ye the Holy Ghost" (John 20:22). We breathe air in order to live, so this speaks to the aspect of the Spirit's ministry when He regenerates the believer and gives them new life.

Second event:

After the ascension, the disciples waited in Jerusalem to receive power from on high (Acts 1:4-5). This speaks to the Spirit's ministry of empowering believers for service. This is like a mighty rushing wind that can be harnessed to help us do work. Natural air is breathed for life; and as wind, is harnessed for power: so the Spirit gives us life and empowers us for service.

Part 2: Why Jesus had to "go away" in both cases

For Regeneration to occur, the disciples had to have their sins atoned for. This could not occur until after His death and resurrection. So He had to leave them to atone for their sins. Once that was done, He could return and they could "receive the Holy Ghost" when He breathed on them.

For Empowering to occur, it's a little more complicated. The disciples were going to be empowered to help them go and tell others about Jesus. Those people would have to believe their words (John 17:20) to be justified by faith. If Jesus had NOT gone away, it would be simple for everyone to just "go check Him out", see the risen Lord, and prove it. There would be nothing to believe or not believe, there would only be proof that everyone would go check out, so there would be no justification by faith. And there would be no sense empowering the disciples with a measure of faith (Romans 12:3) to do anything because Jesus would be here and would have the Spirit of God without measure. The woman at the well in Samaria ran into something similar (John 4:39-42). At first people believed in Christ because of her words. But then others believed because they went and listened to Him directly, so until His ascension she was out of a job, so to speak.

Part 3: Why Jesus remains away during this Gospel Age

Notice that after the resurrection, Jesus only spends time with those who believed in Him before His death. Had He showed up publicly risen from the dead, there would be proof and no opportunity to believe God's words by faith. (Mankind fell through believing the lies of the Serpent; therefore mankind is justified through believing the words of God). The disciples already believed in Him, so He appeared to them confirming the faith they already had. Now, because He is not on Earth in a bodily form, mankind has the opportunity to respond in faith believing God's words and the freedom to disbelieve if they so choose.

Also, the church has the opportunity to preach God's words and work together with the Comforter who comes beside us to give us a measure of the Holy Spirit and work together with us to reach the unbeliever. We have a measure of empowering so we have to work together; there are no lone rangers who have it all on their own. When Christ returns to Earth, the time for faith will no longer be here because proof will arrive.

It might be said that Christ "proved it" to Paul and therefore He had no opportunity to believe by faith. But Paul is the one who wrote that we are justified by faith (Romans 5:1) so that perhaps he had the opportunity to reject the vision of Christ He received on the road to Damascus but instead responded by calling Jesus "Lord" (Acts 9:6).

So to sum it up: Jesus had to depart by dying to make regeneration available; and He had to ascend so that empowering for service would be needed to spread God's word. If the risen Christ were here on Earth there would be proof and no opportunity to believe by faith; and there would be no need for empowering to spread God's word because people wouldn't have to hear it and believe, they could just go check it out. Because He left Earth in bodily form, everyone has the opportunity to experience both aspects of the Spirit's ministry in their lives.

And no, the Spirit was present the entire time; but He "came to them" in a different way each time Jesus "departed" from them.

Hope that helps! :)


Is there any Christian group that takes Matthew 23:8-10 literally? Related to: Are there any Christian groups that follow Matthew 23:9? and What is the Roman Catholic view on Matthew 23:9?

  8 “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and
  you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for
  you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called
  instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah.

Recently I was addressed by my academic title (Master, i.e. synonym of "Rabbi"; but maybe it's even less common to address people by this title in English than it's in Czech, I don't know) and I wondered whether some Christians would consider it wrong or not. So I ask this question: is there a Christian group that considers addressing someone as "mister", calling someone's father "father" or talking about someone as a "teacher" or "doctor" (latin for "teacher") to be wrong or even a sin?

EDIT: the linked question asks only on forbidding usage of "father". Mine is more focused on "mister", "master", "teacher", "doctor" etc. They are related, but this question is broader.

Matthew 23:9 must be understood in the traditional Jewish cultural and religious context.
Students (talmidim) would often refer to their teachers by various titles that indicated significant esteem. These titles included רב (Rav), רבי (Rabbi), מר (Mar), and אבא (Abba). This translate into English as "great one," "my great one," "lord," and "father," respectively.

מר (Mar)

Marcus Jastrow: A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, p. 834.

Example: Babylonian Talmud, Seder Nezikin, Tractate Sanhedrin, Chapter 11, Folio 94a (English/ Hebrew)

Where did he deport them to? Mar Zutra said, "To Africa." Rabbi Chanina said, "To the mountains of Salug."
להיכא אגלי להו מר זוטרא אמר לאפריקי ורבי חנינא אמר להרי סלוג

רבי (Rabbi)

Marcus Jastrow: A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, p. 1442.

Example: Babylonian Talmud, Seder Nezikin, Tractate Sanhedrin, Chapter 11, Folio 94a (English/ Hebrew)

Where did he deport them to? Mar Zutra said, "To Africa." Rabbi Chanina said, "To the mountains of Salug."
להיכא אגלי להו מר זוטרא אמר לאפריקי ורבי חנינא אמר להרי סלוג

Hebrew רב (Rav); Aramaic רבא (Raba)

Marcus Jastrow: A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, p. 1438.

Example: Babylonian Talmud, Seder Mo'ed, Tractate Pesachim, Chapter 9, Folio 92b (English/ Hebrew)

Rav Nachman said, "It is accepted." Rav Sheshet said, "It is not accepted."
רב** ששת אמר לא הורצה רב נחמן אמר הורצה**

Example: Babylonian Talmud, Seder Zera'im, Tractate Brakhot, Chapter 1, Folio 3b (English/ Hebrew)

But Raba said, "There are two kinds of neshef: when the evening disappears and the morning arrives; when the day disappears and the evening arrives.
אלא אמר רבא תרי נשפי הוו נשף ליליא ואתי יממא נשף יממא ואתי ליליא

There are a few others, but I believe this demonstrates the context sufficiently.
Edit: To clarify, there is no reason you may not call your own biological father, "father." It is stated in both the OT and the NT that we are to "honor your mother and father."
The issue concerns calling those in positions of authority (especially religious) by titles of esteem, especially those in the Church. Yeshu'a said that those who were great and first among us were to be our ministers and servants (cp. Matt. 20:26-27). A master does not call his servant, "lord"; likewise, we should not call those who serve us by such titles. For example, "Papa" for the Pope, "Father" for priests, "Rabbi" for Jewish teachers. These are exactly what Yeshu'a was referring to. In addition, to think that he told his disciples that they were not to call the Jewish religious leaders Rav, Rabbi, Mar, Abba, etc., but then Gentile believers can call their religious leaders, "Pope," "Father," is simply nonsensical.
The entire premise behind this prohibition is that there is one alone deserving of esteem, and that is our Lord (Master). All those who believe in him are his servants.


In general, in the Protestant branch, who can baptize a new believer? I know quite well that the plethora of Protestant denominations means that there are almost no universal traditions. However, there are a number of particular traditions or beliefs that are held by the majority of Protestant denominations. In this sense, then, I'm wondering if there is a general consensus - and what the consensus is - as to who can baptize a new believer. An even better answer would be one that broadly categorizes the denominations that have a particular restriction on who can baptize and the denominations that don't have such a restriction. (Brownie points for an answer with a Wesleyan viewpoint.)

Related: According to the Roman Catholic church, who can baptize?

The Scriptures make no restriction on who can baptize another person.  In the Great Commission of Matthew 28, Jesus tells His disciples to make disciples, to baptize them and to teach them obedience.  It is very plausible to presume, then, that the one who disciples is the one who has the right to baptize and teach obedience as well.  Yet, individuals can play different roles in this.

So, some Protestant denominations may restrict the privilege to pastors, but when they do so, it is likely not based on clear prohibitions of Scripture.  Many Protestant denominations reject the idea of a clergy class and a laity class, so what a pastor can do, others who are not pastors can also do (except when it comes to legal issues like performing weddings).

  Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”  Matthew 28:19-20 NAS


What Christian denominations (if any) permit gay marriage? Which churches have decided to permit gay marriage at a denominational level?

The United Church of Christ:

  Churches in the UCC can sanctify same-sex unions.[28] The resolution
  "In support of equal marriage rights for all", supported by an
  estimated 80% of the UCC's 2005 general synod delegates, made the
  United Church of Christ the first major Christian deliberative body in
  the U.S. to make a statement of support for "equal marriage rights for
  all people, regardless of gender," and is hitherto the largest
  Christian denominational entity in the U.S. supporting same-sex
  marriage.[29] This resolution (and the sanctification of same-sex
  marriages), however, is not supported by some congregations.[29] Of
  particular note, the Iglesia Evangelica Unida de Puerto Rico, a
  long-standing conference within the UCC, voted by a 3–1 margin to
  withdraw its affiliation with the UCC over the same-sex marriage
  issue.[30] And the Biblical Witness Fellowship, a conservative
  evangelical organization that is a small but vocal voice within the
  denomination, accepts only heterosexual marriage.[31]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Church_of_Christ#Same-sex_marriage


Is God more just than he is love? (Catholic perspective) I am wondering how Christians see God. I hear many Christians say God is love, but is also just. But I ask them, how can he be love if he is also just?

So two attributes God has given himself are love and just.

In the Old Testament, it is seen that God sets standards for his creation, and consequences: the wages of sin is death. This is God's just side.

But God also says he is love, and that he loves his creation. And he prophesies in Isaiah about salvation from the consequences he has set.

And we see in the new testament, the both the just side of God, and the love side of God be satisfied by the blood of Jesus Christ. The law was fulfilled by Jesus's blood, but also God's love was fulfilled by giving his son for creation.

But then a new law appears: The wages of not believing Jesus is the son of God is eternal torment in hell. How could a God who loves his creation allow them suffer so much?

How do Christians deal with this confliction that seems to come up? It seems to be quite obvious. Romans 8:38 says that nothing can separate humans from God's love, yet how can Paul say God loves them if they are burning in the hell God put them in? If God really is love, then, logically, he wouldn't let them burn there. He would love them too much to watch them sit in anguish for eternity.

From the Catholics I know, most believe that God is love, but logically I fail to see their conclusion in this? But if God instead is not love itself, but just has some love. He is much more just than he is love, then he could let them burn there, for justice prevails his love and allows the punishment to occur.

For someone who may not know the common knowledge of the children growing up in the church, it has occurred to me that it might be common knowledge that God is just first, love second, but from the Christians I know, it would surprise me if the Catholic church agreed with this.

And also, if God really loved creation, couldn't he just switch up the rules to allow his just side to be satisfied? And if he is love would he not forgive Satan also?

I know on this site I must declare what denomination I am targeting, but really I just want to know the logical process where one concludes that God is love, unless of course someone biblically verifies that God is just first, then love second (which I myself cannot find in the scriptures.) But if I must pick a denomination, I will choose Catholic because it seems that is the majority of this site.

This question arised from the verse 1 John 4:8: "He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love."

St. Thomas Aquinas (Catholic perspecitve) tells us that within God, all His 'attributes' have to be, within Himself, identical. Due to divine simplicity.

Here are my personal thoughts, as a Catholic, in contemplating these two sides of God: the just and the merciful.

I think the issue of the relationship between love and justice.

Firstly, love is to want to do what is good. Justice is to ensure that evil is not done, and that goods are encouraged or supported. Anything which offends or diminishes the morally good state of something or someone is evil and against justice.

Love wants good to be done; and evil not to be done. This means that it wants justice to be done—because justice is that which upholds good and punishes or diminishes evil. Justice being done is love being excercised,in other words.

But justice being a good in itself, and caused by love, implies a certain 'concession' of itself in certain cases. That is, if doing justice would offend the main goals of love, or the greater priorities thereof, then the punishment of justice might serve a purpose contrary to love. In this case, God delays or moves His justice elsewhere, which is called mercy. The example reason mercy is given might be that to give immediate justice might not result in the same love being shown, whereas delaying justice might foster a sense of gratefulness etc,and ultimate conversion.

The sole reason God forgives and does not condemn us all to Hell for any sin ("the wages of sin is death"—to sow sin is to reap Hell), is purely on the basis of the merits of Jesus Christ, who freely took our punishment upon Himself. He satisfied justice due to sin perfectly, and since He did not Himself need any merit, He freely gave us it as a gift. The gift of redemption.

It's for this reason also that if you deny the Son, you cut yourself off from the only source of mercy God can or will offer you! The residents of Hell sent themselves there by losing the fight with justice, who will always win, because it's good that it does. God states Himself that He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked but would have them turn from their wicked ways and live. Calvinist nonsense notwithstanding.

SO love and justice are one and the same within God, we simply describe soemthing like a back and forth motion in God as 'mercy' and 'justice'. But love is what is being achieved overall, and always without exception.

  Psalm 136:1

  Praise the Lord, for he is good: for his mercy endureth for ever.

God's mercy endures forever, because He is love, and will always be love.


Why don't Reformed Christians consider it necessary to confess to a priest? Reformed Christians, like Presbyterians differ from the Catholic and Orthodox Church in their understanding of forgiveness of ones' sins. One way in which they differ is not having the sacrament of Penance.
Why don't Reformed Christians consider it necessary to confess to a priest?

Firstly, penance was rejected at the time of the reformation because the doctrine was based on a mistranslation of the Greek word metanoia - "repentance". The Latin Vulgate had, poenitenitam agite - "doing acts of penance". Martin Luther was the one who originally made this discovery.
Secondly, although James 5:16 says "confess your sins to each other", the New Testament does not contain anything to do with confessing to a priest or doing penance for confessed sins. Protestants believe that confession is something which is a good thing to do in the Christian community, individually and corporately, but it is not something which believers have to do to a priest. Which leads onto...
Thirdly, there is an important difference between Protestant understandings of priesthood and the sacraments. For example, Protestants would reject a pastor being a "priest" (because of the priesthood of all believers, e.g. 1 Peter 2:9 "you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood". In the Church of England, the word 'priest' was retained but only inasmuch as it is derived from a medieval contraction of the Greek word presbyter - elder). Protestants also believe in only two sacraments - the Lord's Supper and Baptism (e.g. 39 Articles, article XXV).
In sum, to answer the question properly you really have to explore the much bigger difference of priesthood in Catholic and Protestant understandings as well as the Sacraments, Scripture and Tradition. And, because repentance is such a big part of the Christian life, it goes even further back to what Catholics and Protestants believe about the Christian life (e.g. sanctification and justification). So it's no small question!


How does Christ define a Christian? Referencing the gospel accounts of Christ's actions and teachings, how does He clearly define a Christian?

Jesus didn't, because the word "Christian" only appeared much later. Acts 11:26c:

  The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.


Which theory of the atonement did C. S. Lewis hold? In C. S. Lewis's The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe (spoiler alert), the White Witch, the personification of the devil, says some interesting things:

  You at least know the Magic which the Emperor put into Narnia at the very beginning.  You know that every traitor belongs to me as my lawful prey and that for every treachery I have a right to a kill. [...] That human creature is mine.  His life is forfeit to me.  His blood is my property. [...] Unless I have blood as the Law says all Narnia will be overturned and perish in fire and water.

In response, Aslan, the representation of Christ, says:

  It is very true.  I do not deny it.

Aslan then proceeds to give himself up to the White Witch, who kills him to appease the Deep Magic.

This portrayal of the atonement sounds to me most like the ransom theory of atonement.  Though the word "ransom" is not used, the Devil owns the sinner and gives him up only after justice is satisfied through a sacrifice.

Is this actually the model of the atonement that Lewis preferred?  It seems odd that a Protestant would adhere to a model largely displaced by others for the last thousand years.

Which model of the atonement did C. S. Lewis prefer?

C. S. Lewis is well-known for not calling himself a theologian.  Rather than seeking a systematic theological perspective, he understood the story of Christ as a "true myth."  As he explains:

It is true, not in the sense of being a 'description' of God (that no finite mind could take in) but in the sense of being the way in which God chooses to (or can) appear to our faculties.  The 'doctrines' we get out of the true myth are of course less true: they are translations into our concepts and ideas.1

Thus, it's not surprising that Lewis avoids taking a strong stance on a theory of atonement.  In fact, he deliberately downplays the different theories in Mere Christianity:

We are told that Christ was killed for us, that His death has washed out our sins, and that by dying He disabled death itself. That is the formula. That is Christianity. That is what has to be believed. Any theories we build up as to how Christ’s death did this are, in my view, quite secondary: mere plans or diagrams to be left alone if they do not help us, and, even if they do help us, not to be confused with the thing itself.2

In the same chapter, he writes regarding a specific image of the atonement: "if it does not help you, drop it."  He later clarified that he did not mean "reject" but rather that it "'need not be used' – a very different thing."3 Taking a position on this question is not necessary, he writes:

A man can eat his dinner without understanding exactly how food nourishes him.  A man can accept what Christ has done without knowing how it works.2

Did he express a preference?
Though he takes this general approach, can we glean from Lewis's writings to see which models he preferred, or at least, ones he did not prefer?  Yes, but the task is difficult.  For example, the language of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe is actually less clear than an initial reading indicates: later in the book, the atonement is simply attributed to "deep magic" with no further explanation.  Similarly, in Till We Have Faces, the mechanism behind a substitute sacrifice is not explained.
First, we can safely say that Lewis was not particularly comfortable with the penal brand of substitutionary atonement.  In the aforementioned chapter in Mere Christianity he writes that "this theory does not seem to me quite so immoral and so silly as it used to"2—hardly a ringing endorsement.
That said, he is more comfortable with a "fiscal" substitutionary atonement.  He writes, “If you think of it as a debt, there is plenty of point in a person who has some assets paying it on behalf of someone who has not.” He continues, however, to further develop his idea of substitutionary atonement.  It incorporates some of the language of subjective models of atonement, in that one purpose of Christ's death is to make it possible for us to surrender to God.  By dying, Lewis says, the God-man undergoes surrender and death, making it possible for him to instill those characteristics in us and enable us to surrender to God and die to self.2
Elsewhere, in Reflections on the Psalms, Lewis again employs language reminiscent of a fiscal substitutionary atonement:

The price of salvation is one that only the Son of God could pay; as the hymn says, there was no other "good enough to pay the price." [...] As Dr. Moffatt translates [Psalm 49]: "None can buy himself off.  Not one can purchase for a price from God (soul's ransom is too dear) life that shall never end."4

Substitutionary atonement is also clearly seen in Miracles:

He tasted death on behalf of all others.  He is the representative 'Die-er' of the universe: and for that very reason the Resurrection and the Life. [...] Because Vicariousness is the very idiom of the reality He has created, His death can become ours.5

However, elsewhere he uses language more closely aligned with other models, such as the ransom to Satan model.  In Perelandra, the divine voice says to the protagonist (named Ransom), "My name also is Ransom":

It was some time before the purport of this saying dawned upon him.  He whom the other worlds call Maleldil, was the world's ransom, his own ransom, well he knew. [...] So that was the real issue.6

Views of scholars and theologians
Given what we have seen so far, it's not surprising that there is ongoing debate over which position Lewis held.  Some evangelicals, like Kevin DeYoung, while valuing much of Lewis's writing, reject his understanding of the atonement:

I would argue his view is more like Christus victor or ransom to Satan than penal substitution.7

Others do the same but find a different view in his writing:

For Lewis the atonement is not fundamentally a matter of pardon, imputation and forgiveness, but rather the actual transformation of fallen beings into Christlike creatures. [...] Salvation is not primarily a matter of having our sins wiped away but rather overcoming the chief sin of self-will or pride.8

Ironically, disagreement is perhaps most heated with respect to the model displayed in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe:

The cover story of Time on April 12, 2004, asked, “Why Did Jesus Die?” and went on to present the three major theories of Atonement. The writers cited Lewis as a contemporary example for the “role model” or Subjective theory: “C. S. Lewis, the Christian thinker and author of the Narnia series . . . was not a doctrinaire exemplarist, but the lion Aslan, who stood in for Christ, was clearly a figure to be emulated.” Peter J. Schakel, responding to this assertion, argues, “The writers of the article definitely miss the point. . . . Aslan gives himself to the Witch as a sacrifice to make amends for Edmund’s disobedience. By focusing on that theory, Lewis takes a stronger [Substitutionary] stand than he does in Mere Christianity.”
Likewise, in reference to Aslan’s death, theologian Howard Worsely readily states, “The precise interpretation of the atonement is penal substitution.” Another Lewis pundit, Shanna Caughey, chimes in: “This form of soteriology is called substitutional atonement.” Meanwhile, authors like Charles Taliaferro (gleefully) and Matthew Hall (gloomily) state that Narnian Atonement theology lands most definitely in the Ransom, or Christus Victor, camp.9

Summary
The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe can indeed be seen as a microcosm of Lewis's thought on the atonement: in it, Lewis refuses "to be bound by any one depiction of the Atonement."9  His other writing makes it clear that he does not see any need to settle on a particular theory of the atonement, considering it to be something beyond human understanding.

References:

Letter to Arthur Greeves, quoted in James W. Menzies, True Myth, 192
Mere Christianity, Book 2, Chapter 4, "The Perfect Penitent."  See also The Problem of Pain, chapter 5.
Letter to Dom Bede, quoted in Walter Hooper, C. S. Lewis, 307
Reflections on the Psalms, Chapter 4
Miracles, Chapter 14
Perelandra, Chapter 11
DeYoung, "Cautions for Mere Christianity" (also archived via WebCite)
Scott R. Burson and Jerry L. Walls, C. S. Lewis & Francis Schaeffer, "The Nature of Salvation"
Touchstone, April 2009, "Mere Atonement" (also archived via WebCite)


Do any authorities have anything to say about "criminality" as grounds for divorce in addition to "adultery," alluded to in the New Testament? A (Christian) acquaintance of mine offered the opinion that the two valid grounds for divorce are adultery and criminality.

Matthew 5:32 says, "Everyone who divorces their spouse, except on grounds of adultery, makes them an adulteress/er." Apparently divorce is permitted for adultery.

Adultery is self explanatory. "Criminality" would probably refer to a felony such as robbery, assault, or murder. (Rape would also be a form adultery.) Maybe certain "nonviolent" crimes such as embezzlement, drug use, or even "shoplifting."

Are there any Christian denominations, doctrines, or faith traditions that would make a similar provision for criminality? Could there even be a "work around" whereby criminality is considered more serious than adultery, so making an adulteress/er by divorcing a spouse is less serious than the spouse's criminal behavior? (I don't know this acquaintance well enough to ask where he was coming from.)

We spend a lot of time searching for holes in the fencing of our playground.  Under what circumstances am I allowed to approach this or that forbidden thing.  Divorce is certainly one of those things and, although in today's world it is comfortably assimilated into most cultures, it always has been.

The religious leaders tried to entrap Jesus on this very question.  The oft quoted 'adultery exemption' is weightier in the whole context.

  And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?”  He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female,  and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?  So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”  They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?”  He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.  And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” - Matthew 19:3-9

What Jesus outlines here is the difference between what God intends and what God allows because we are hard-hearted.  Obstinate, unrepentant pursuit of sexual sin within a marriage is allowed by God as grounds for divorce but let's not deceive ourselves into thinking it pleases Him.  Divorce is an act which tries to unmake a creation of God:  "So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."

We err greatly in the matter when we hold that a secular court or an ecclesiastic body either enacts or dissolves a marriage.  "What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate".  This is a divine, creative covenant established directly by God before the intrusion of sin into creation.

The book of Job weighs in here without direct reference.  When Satan is given permission by God to oppress Job,

  “Behold, all that he has is in your hand. Only against him do not stretch out your hand.” - Job 1:12

Satan is forbidden to touch Job himself.  Satan destroys Job's propsperity and his posterity but, although Job's wife is never mentioned in the prohibition, Satan leaves her alone.

Again, when Satan is allowed a second time to afflict Job,

  And the LORD said to Satan, “Behold, he is in your hand; only spare his life. - Job 2:6

he obeys God's prohibition and does not take Job's life.  Once again there is no mention of Job's wife in the prohibition but Satan leaves her alone.

It seems that in the heavenly realms it is understood as a matter of course needing no mention (not even to the devil himself) that a man and his wife are one and the same entity.

  And this second thing you do. You cover the LORD's altar with tears, with weeping and groaning because he no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor from your hand. But you say, “Why does he not?” Because the LORD was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth. “For the man who does not love his wife but divorces her, says the LORD, the God of Israel, covers his garment with violence, says the LORD of hosts. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and do not be faithless.” - Malachi 2:13-16

Is marriage extremely difficult and painful at times?  What part of a life of faith is not?


What is the significance of the Julian calendar for the Orthodox church? Why do many Orthodox churches continue to use the Julian calendar?

Today, many Orthodox churches use a Revised Julian Calendar, which largely corresponds to the Gregorian calendar used throughout the rest of Christendom, with the exception of the date of Easter.

The dating of Easter is seen by some, like Lewis J. Patsavos of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, as the primary reason that Orthodox churches originally rejected the Gregorian Calendar when it was presented in the 16th century:

  Despite the efforts of the emissaries of Pope Gregory to convince the Orthodox to accept the New (Gregorian) Calendar, the Orthodox Church rejected it. The main reason for its rejection was that the celebration of Easter would be altered: contrary to the injunctions of canon 7 of the Holy Apostles, the decree of the First Ecumenical Synod, and canon 1 of Ancyra, Easter would sometimes coincide with the Jewish Passover in the Gregorian calendar.

The aforementioned canon of the Apostolic Canons reads:

  If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, shall celebrate the holy day of Easter before the vernal equinox, with the Jews, let him be deposed.

To avoid this issue, a Revised Julian Calendar was adopted by many Orthodox churches in the early 20th century.  Such churches follow the Western calendar except in the case of Easter, for which they maintain the original calculation.  Thus, the date of Easter for the vast majority of Eastern Orthodox churches continues to often be one or more weeks after the Western date.

For others, the root issue in the 16th century was not the date of Easter but rather papal authority.  John W. Morris writes:

  When first introduced, acceptance of the Gregorian Calendar implied the recognition of the authority of the Pope. (The Historic Church, 506)

But Morris recognizes that many continue to reject even the revised calendar, and attributes this to "rigidity" and "legalism" over "non-essentials such as the calendar." (508)  Timothy Ware describes the "Old Calendarists" more neutrally:

  The Old Calendarists see the change in the calendar as the first in a long series of innovations which, so they believe, have corrupted the mainstream Orthodox Churches in the twentieth century.  In their view, what is at stake is not just a technical mater of thirteen days, but the purity of the Orthodox faith. (The Orthodox Church)


What is the purpose and basis of the stigmata? The stigmata is sores or wounds in the places that Jesus suffered wounds during the crucifixion. That's about as much as I know.

My questions, to be answered from a Catholic perspective:

What's the purpose of the stigmata?
What is the Biblical basis, if any, for the stigmata?
How does the stigmata not indicate Christ's suffering was insufficient?
How do we know that the stigmata reflects Christ's crucifixion and not someone else that was crucified?

Stigmata is a grace given to a follower of Christ₁, meaning
Stigmata is not public revelation, nor could it be. So it's not biblical in the way the 7 Sacraments (Baptism, Marriage, the Eucharist, Reconciliation, Holy Orders, Last Rites and Confirmation) are.
These private revelations often come directly from Christ Himself.  It is contingent on the authority of the Church ₂ to quash belief in a particular private revelation or allow it to continue.

₁ do all work miracles? (1 Cor 12:29)

₂ thou art peter (Matt 16:18))