Does God hate Sinners like he hates Sin? I've heard it a thousand times, God loves the sinner but hates the sin. Recently I came across a verse in Psalms 5:5

  Psalm 5:5 (KJV)  The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.

Is this a proper translation?

Great question. I think where people often struggle with this is the imposition of the assumption that hate and love are mutually exclusive. This often tends to be the case with us, but it is a result of our sinful nature. God can both hate the sinner for what he does, and still love him in many ways.

Donald Carson has a great little book (free PDF) called the Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God, in which he argues that God's love is not spoken of univocally throughout scripture, but instead that there are multiple perspectives that scripture gives to show us a broader lover than we can see from only one angle. I've reproduced the author's breakdown below.

The peculiar love of the Father for the Son, and of the Son for
the Father.
God’s providential love over all that he has made.
God’s salvific stance toward his fallen world.
God’s particular, effective, selecting love toward his elect.
Finally, God’s love is sometimes said to be directed toward his
own people in a provisional or conditional way—conditioned, that is,
on obedience.

Allowing for a multiperspectival approach to understanding God's Love helps us to see God as simultaneously loving and full of wrath.


What is the difference between a Christian and a Messianic Jew? I know that most Messianic Jews speak Hebrew, but besides that is there any difference between a Christian and a Messianic Jew? Do they have any significant differences in faith or hope!

The term Messianic Jew refers to Christians who identify as Jewish, as compared to those who identify as Russian, English, Thai etc. Most of them are of Jewish descent, though there are some who are not but have chosen to identify themselves as Jewish.

Most Messianic Jews believe there is a very strong continuity between the Hebrew scriptures and Christianity. Many uphold the Mosaic Law and, for example, celebrate its festivals. They believe that Jesus is the fulfilment of many of the prophesies of the Hebrew scriptures, just as Christians do. In general their beliefs are likely to be largely the same as other Christians, though there's also just as much diversity among them as there is the rest of us.

There are also Christians who are of Jewish descent but who do call themselves Messianic Jews. Jewish identity is more complex than other ethnicities as it may involve an identification with the Jewish people, their history, their culture and the religion of Judaism, or it may involve an identification with only some of those things. These people may acknowledge their Jewish descent but not strongly identify with the Jewish culture or religion, perhaps because contemporary Judaism has significant differences from how it was practiced in Biblical times.


What is the basis for saying that Adam was created without sin? I've googled multiple phrases and in different ways, but I haven't yet found any verse that says that Adam an Eve were created without sin. Or that simply says they were without sin before the fall, for that matter.

But I did find multiple scriptures saying Jesus was/is without sin...

It says Adam was made in the image of God...
But so is the rest of humanity.
And we are sinners.

Is it possible that Adam was sinful in nature, but just wasn't held accountable for his sins because he didn't know right from wrong?

Before the fall, when Adam and Eve disobeyed God there was no sin in the world:

  Romans 5:12 through 14 NKJV  Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13  (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14  Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

These Scriptures tell us that when Adam and Eve disobeyed God Death came into the world and so did sin, however; sin was not attributed to mankind until God gave Moses the law.

If this sounds confusing try to think of it this way God originally gave Adam instructions not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil lest they die. Adam by eating from the tree then brought death to mankind. Adam and Eve sinned when they disobeyed God and ate from the tree God told Adam not to eat thereof. However; from the time of their sin until God gave the ten Commandments to Moses no other humans ate from the tree, therefore no others were disobeying God's commandment. Sin is disobeying God. After God punished Adam and Eve, he sort of put man on a trial basis to see if they would use their free will for good or for evil, and that is why God regretted that he had made man and destroyed the World with a flood.

Then after the Flood even though he had chosen righteous Noah to repopulate the World man still gravitated toward evil.

So the answer to your question must be yes the original man, who we call Adam was created without sin, and did not disobey Cod until they ate from the tree which was the first sin.


Was the Holy Spirit or God (the Godhead), the father of Jesus? Holy Spirit conceives Jesus

Matthew 1:20 ESV

  But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord
  appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear
  to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from
  the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you shall call his name
  Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”

Luke 1:35 ESV

  And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and
  the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to
  be born[a] will be called holy— the Son of God.

Jesus is distinct from God

Clearly during "life" Jesus was distinct from God:

John 20:17 ESV

  Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to
  the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to
  my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”

Matthew 27:46 ESV

  And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying,
  “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you
  forsaken me?”

And in heaven:

Psalm 110:1 YLT

  A Psalm of David. The affirmation of Jehovah (LORD) to my Lord: `Sit at My
  right hand, Till I make thine enemies thy footstool.'

and

Mark 16:19 ESV

  So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into
  heaven and sat down at the right hand of God.

The question

So then, the Holy Spirit must also be distinct.  Is it better proper to say that the Holy Spirit is the father of Jesus?

The Holy Spirit is not the Father of Jesus, God the Father is. What you are asking about is the nature of the Trinity.

Trinity

Christians have always believed the Son of God was preexisting before the creation of the world and is God who created the world. The Father spoke through the Son and the Spirit performed the actual creative events.

  John 1:1-3
  1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

God told Moses that His name was ‘I AM’ (Exodus 3:14 ) meaning without beginning and eternal, therefore, when Jesus said the following, the Jews picked up stones to stone Him for blasphemy:

  John 8:57-58
  “You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!” 58 “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”

The Holy Spirit is also God. He is an eternally existing divine person and the author of divine operations.

For example:

  Genesis 1:2
  Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Now all three person of the trinity combined are the Godhead who is One.

  Matthew 28:19
  Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

God is One:

  Isaiah 44:6
  The Lord, Not Idols 6 “This is what the Lord says— Israel’s King and Redeemer, the Lord Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.

So it seems very Biblical to accept the Trinity as believed by the Christian church throughout all the ages.  One definition of the trinity that makes things clear can be taken from John Owen’s Works Volume 2, Page 462:

  God is one; — that this one God is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; — that the Father is the Father of the Son; and the Son, the Son of the Father; and the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of the Father and the Son; and that, in respect of this their mutual relation, they are distinct from each other.

What sometimes makes the issue more complex, and more direcct to your point, is that Jesus sometimes speaks from His 'God-ward' side, like when the Jews wanted to stone Him, and sometimes from His 'man-ward' side.  The verses you quote seem to be when He is speaking from his man-ward aspect, like ‘to my God and your God’. The same is true when Jesus refers to his disciples as his 'brothers'.  This is easily understood when we remember although Christ was eternal, the man Jesus was not. Therefore, the Spirit is one person of the Holy Trinity performing the works of the eternal Father’s will through the eternal Son, God's word. That is how in a theoretical-sense the Spirit is kind of a 'father' of the body of Christ, but not really, more like the creative cause, or operation, according to the original Father's will. The God-Man is by no means the Son of the Spirit, He is the Son of God the Father.

The Son is the eternally generated Son of the Father, not the Spirit.  What you have noticed is that the body of Christ was made by the Spirit, so technically, yes, God was the father of the Man Jesus, by the Spirit’s operation and power. The eternal Son was willing to take this body prepared for Him, thereby creating the God-Man, the Christ of God, in order to bring salvation to men. By this means The eternal Son assumed a human body prepared for Him by the eternal Spirit, according to the will of the eternal Father.  All three; Father, Son and Holy Spirit, are the 'I AM', the only One and true God.


To the Calvinist, does Phillipians 1:29 mean that all the Philippians will go to heaven because all of them have already been elected? Philippians 1:29

  For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe
  on him, but also to suffer for his sake.

My understanding :
1. The word "you" is all of the Philippians.
2. The speaker, in the Philippians point of view is already like God.
3. The speaker's sentence is the Word of God

So, what God say is "The ability of all the Philippians to believe Jesus and to suffer for His sake because it's given (in time, on date-X month-Y year-Z) because all the Philippians have been elected (before time, before the foundation of the world)."

My question (assuming my imagination is correct) :
Does the sentence in that verse indirectly mean that all the Philippians in that time will go to heaven?

Calvin says in his commentary on Philippians 1:28.

  but Paul in another instance, too, speaks of them as a manifest token or proof, (2 Thessalonians 1:5,) and instead of ἔνδειξιν, which we have here, he in that passage makes use of the term ἔνδειγμα This, therefore, is a choice consolation, that when we are assailed and harassed by our enemies, we have an evidence of our salvation. For persecutions are in a manner seals of adoption to the children of God, if they endure them with fortitude and patience: the wicked give a token of their condemnation, because they stumble against a stone by which they shall be bruised to pieces ... He proves it from this, that the endurance of the cross is the gift of God. Now it is certain, that all the gifts of God are salutary to us. To you, says he, it is given, not only to believe in Christ, but also to suffer for him. Hence even the sufferings themselves are evidences of the grace of God; and, since it is so, you have from this source a token of salvation.

So it would seen that the 'you' are those enduring sufferings on behalf of Christ. It does not seem to necessarily include all Philippians or all the hearers of the letter. Calvin continues that those sufferings and the ability to endure them are a gift from God and evidence of salvation. Since he mentions that ability to endure, it seems to imply that not all of the hearers or even all of those who are currently suffering have evidence of salvation. Only those who are graced to endure to the end may have reassurance of their election.

From what Calvin says, we can not know who is 'you' until later.

  For persecutions are in a manner seals of adoption to the children of God, if they endure them with fortitude and patience.

For the hearers, all the hearers, it is an exhortation to endure. However, knowing who has been graced to endure is not possible during the suffering since it is the endurance to the end that is evidence of grace/election.

Whether or not evanescent grace may appear here does not seem to be addressed.


Was Jesus' power limited relative to the belief of others? Mark 6 4-6:

  4 Then Jesus said to them, “People everywhere give honor to a prophet,
  except in his own town, with his own people, or in his home.” 5 Jesus
  was not able to do any miracles there except the healing of some sick
  people by laying his hands on them. 6 He was surprised that the people
  there had no faith. Then he went to other villages in that area and
  taught.

Like above, there are several examples where He can't heal people because of their unbelief.

However, there is a difference: He won't vs. He cannot - heal someone because of their unbelief and this concept is usually overlooked.

Is there anyway to determine if His power was drained or weakened by others and what does that mean for a believer today?

Does this mean my level of faith (or vice versa) is analogous to this phenomenon described above?

Here we see Jesus only recognizes and heals certain people based on their faith or to demonstrate God's will: Why does Jesus feel only certain people that come into physical contact with Him?

Any studies, papers, speeches on this?

It's not like it's a video game and He needs "faith power-ups". The idea of God being dependent on us is a a ridiculous heresy.

From http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue3.htm

  Some claim that Jesus at least temporarily lost His deity. This cannot
  be true if Jesus is "I AM" as He claimed repeatedly in the Gospel of
  John, and if He is "the same yesterday and today, and forever" as
  Hebrews 13:8 asserts. If Jesus was not God at anytime and was
  therefore dependent on something or someone else to become God, then
  His "deity" would be contingent and not true deity. Such teachings
  must therefore be rejected as heretical. Jesus by His eternal nature
  does not and cannot cease to be God.

And there are plenty of easily found commentaries that explain this verse.  Like this one:

From Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible found here:

  And he could there do no mighty work,.... Or miracle; not that Christ
  had no power in himself to work miracles, though their unbelief and
  contempt of him were very great; but it was not fit and proper that he
  should do any there, since such were their prejudices against him: it
  is an usual way of speaking with the Hebrews, when either it is not
  "fit" and proper that a thing should be done, or they "will" not do
  it, to say it cannot be done; see Genesis 19:22; and even it is said
  of God himself, "So that the Lord could no longer bear, because of
  your evil doings"

Or The Geneva Study Bible

And he {d} could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them.

(d) That is, he would not: for we need to have faith if we are going to receive the works of God.

All of the commentaries seem pretty united that it doesn't denot a lack of power, but that He simply would not. It's the same basic usage in saying "God cannot sin".

It's not the He does not possess the power to do so, but that it's completely against His nature to do so.


How are John 17:3 (the Father being "the only true God") and John 14:6 (Jesus being "the truth") reconcilable? I was wondering if there was a hidden meaning to John 17:3.

In John 17:3 Jesus calls Father the only true God, but in John 14:6 Jesus says that He is the Truth. You can't have a "True" God without the Truth.

So, is Jesus trying to show his eternal relationship with his Father in John 17:3?

Fr. Cornelius à Lapide, S.J., explains in his commentary on John 17:3:

That they may know Thee, the only true God. Hence the Arians infer that Christ is not true God. In reply,

S. Augustine (in loc.), Bede, and others, connect together Jesus Christ and the Father under the one term “Deity,” and interpret thus, As the Father is true God, so is the Son also true God. (See S. Hil. lib. ix. de Isaiah.) The statement would otherwise be imperfect, for if we believed that the Father alone was true God, we could not have anything else to say about Jesus Christ, unless we understood that He was true God also. The Fathers, in fact, infer from this Christ’s Godhead.

S. Chrysostom, Cyril, and others reply that the word “only” does not exclude the Son and the Holy Spirit, but merely idols and false gods. And the meaning is that they may believe in Thee, who art that God, who only is the true God, as is also the Son and the Holy Spirit. That the Son is true God is sufficiently indicated, when it is said that eternal life consists in the knowledge of Him and of the Father alike. For eternal life necessarily consists in (the knowledge of) the one supreme and true God. (See S. Ambrose de Fide, v. 2.) Christ therefore through modesty does not call Himself God, but one sent by the Father, as the Redeemer of the world. For such He was when Incarnate, and made man. And hence we infer that faith in the Incarnation and the Trinity is required in order to salvation. For the Father cannot be fully believed in, apart from the Son and the Holy Spirit, for the Paternity of the Father requires also the breathing forth of the Holy Spirit.


What are the most striking disagreements (if any) between the early Church Fathers of the second century? What are the most striking disagreements (if any) between the early Church Fathers of the second century?

EDIT: The unanimity of the early Church Fathers is something that is often presented as an indisputable fact. However, while they were all in agreement about some major points of faith, there might have been some disagreements on some minor things. This question is about that.

EDIT: As for the definition of "Church Father", I just follow Wikipedia's list.

One of the most striking disagreements in the early church and even today was on the question of the virginity of Mary at Christ's birth and thereafter.

In the early church and even still today, we all agree that a virgin conceived and carried to term Christ.  The disagreement was on what happened next at His birth.  This disagreement subsequently also factored into the question of the relationship of the brothers of Jesus; were they also born from Mary or from elsewhere?  We won't go into that issue, but will focus on the birth of Christ.  There are two diametrically opposed views.

Which Gate and How?

To understand the conflict in the very early church, we will start with John of Damacus who wrote something remarkable around 725.

  But just as He who was conceived kept her who conceived still virgin, in like manner also He who was born preserved her virginity intact, only passing through her and keeping her closed. The conception, indeed, was through the sense of hearing, but the birth through the usual path by which children come, although some tell tales of His birth through the side of the Mother of God. For it was not impossible for Him to have come by this gate, without injuring her seal in anyway.
  -source-

John tells us of the belief in a "normal" birth through the "south gate".  Apparently he believes that, but has no way to explain it.  He also references the belief Christ was born out the "east gate"; that is, from Mary's side.  He even gives credence to this belief as "not impossible".  [added editions are in brackets] [OTOH, John may be referencing again the "south gate"; that it wasn't impossible to remain intact (somehow).]  So to where does this idea arise [of a "normal" birth but with gate(s) regardless of south or east remaining intact]?

The idea sources to the infancy gospel of James wherein it is said that Mary remained a virgin even in the act of giving birth.  This means one of two things.  Neither are good.  One she retained all of the afterbirth (placenta, blood, umbilical cord, etc).  Two she was never really pregnant with Christ.  This group was lead by Origen, Valentinus, and others.

As mentioned, this idea stays alive all the way to John of Damascus still commenting on the idea that Christ was born from Mary's side (east gate).  Moreover we find the idea in the Trullo Council 692 in Constantinople defining no afterbirth at Christ's birth in Canon LXXIX.

  As the Catholic Church has always taught the Virgin-birth as well as the Virgin-conception of our Blessed Lord, and has affirmed that Mary was ever-virgin, even after she had brought forth the incarnate Son, so it follows necessarily that there could be no childbed nor puerperal flux.
  -source-

No childbed or birth flux, which means no afterbirth, umbilical cord, blood, placenta or all the normal things from a normal human birth.  That was what was denied according to this view.

Here again is the source of this idea.

  And the midwife went forth out of the cave, and Salome met her. And she said to her: Salome, Salome, I have a strange sight to relate to thee: a virgin has brought forth -- a thing which her nature admits not of.

Why?  Her nature of being pregnant would be to bring forth a newborn, but also the rest of what it means to be pregnant.

Valentinus put it this way.

  “he has brought his body down from above and passed through the Virgin Mary like water through a pipe.  He has taken nothing from the virgin womb…”
  Panarion of Epiphanius H7

Marcion, quoted from Tertullian, put it this way, denying the afterbirth, the normal birth in the normal human way.

  Of course you [Marcion] are horrified also at the infant, which is shed into life with the embarrassments which accompany it from the womb;6991 you likewise, of course, loathe it even after it is washed, when it is dressed out in its swaddling-clothes, graced with repeated anointing, smiled on with nurse’s fawns. This reverend course of nature, you, O Marcion, (are pleased to) spit upon; and yet, in what way were you born? You detest a human being at his birth; then after what fashion do you love anybody? Yourself, of course, you had no love of, when you departed from the Church and the faith of Christ.
  -source-

Ouch.  Tertullian draws a line in the sand here between believing as the Church does in a normal human birth versus the "not normal".  Unfortunately again, this idea nonetheless remained within and found its way some 550 years later in the aforementioned Council Canon.

Normal Birth in the Normal Way

On the other hand you have those in the church who agreed that Christ was born normally in the normal way.  This meant exactly what it means (virginity, defined as intactness, was ended).   This group was lead by Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, and others.

I've already shown Tertullian commenting on the false idea of ever-virgin due to the idea of Mary retaining the after-birth or not even having any.  Here is Clement of Alexandria who wrote about 200 also coming against that idea.  He also mentions the source (Infancy Gospel of James).

  "But, as appears, many even down to our own time regard Mary, on account of the birth of her child, as having been in the puerperal state, although she was not. For some say that, after she brought forth, she was found, when examined, to be a virgin."
  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iv.vii.xvi.html

That is to say they taught that Mary because of Jesus' birth remained in the childbirth state, remained a virgin after she brought forth, but Clement disagrees with them.

The context of Clement's quote is found in the first sentence and provides more clarity.

  But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves.
  -ibid-

Again his conclusion is not that Mary remained in the birth state as a perpetual virgin, but rather that scripture remained virginal.

  Now [in contrast to the heretics] such to us are the Scriptures of the Lord, which gave birth to the truth and continue virgin, in the concealment of the mysteries of the truth.
  -ibid-

Cyril of Jerusalem wrote about 350 and lays out the same argument that the only way Christ took flesh was to be born normally of the virgin.  Note his insistence against the heretics on when that ended because Christ was both Son of God and Son of Man.

  Since God then beareth witness, and the Holy Ghost joins in the witness, and Christ says, Why do ye seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth let the heretics be silenced who speak against His humanity, for they speak against Him, who saith, Handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.  Adored be the Lord the Virgin-born, and let Virgins acknowledge the crown of their own state:  let the order also of Solitaries acknowledge the glory of chastity for we men are not deprived of the dignity of chastity.  In the Virgin’s womb the Saviour’s period of nine months was passed:  but the Lord was for thirty and three years a man:  so that if a virgin glories because of the nine months, much more we because of the many years.
  -source-

Let me men glory because of Christ's virginity.  Let the women glory for the Virgin Mary's 9 months.  9 months, not her whole life because to do so was to support the heretical idea that Christ took nothing from the Virgin and merely passed through her.

Conclusion

It may seem strange to our ears to hear this conflict in the words of those from some 2,000 years ago as they argued about the nature of Christ.  After all, most Christians would agree He is Son of God and Son of Man; they just aren't sure how.  Still that was the context of the argument about the nature of His birth and thus His nature.  Did He just pass through Mary or was He born normally?  Was there just an appearing or was the birth human complete with umbilical cord, blood, and placenta?

On the one side were those like Valentinus, Marcion, and Origen who believed and taught that Jesus took nothing from Mary and merely passed through her.  They taught there was no normal birth, but rather that Christ just apppeared at her side.  She remained in the childbirth state as a virgin.

On the other side were men like Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Cyril of Alexandria who taught that Christ was born normally.  Let the virgins glory in Mary's nine months.


Lending with Interest in Christianity I'm writing something about usury and want to mention Christianity point of view on it.

There are several verses in Bible that prohibit usury. Also Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther have despised interest. However, modern Christians seem to be OK with lending and borrowing with interest, especially in US.

How did so many modern Christians come to accept this practice?

Modern Christians may have come to accept the practice of charging interest to unbelievers who can afford it, because the Bible doesn't forbid it.

  1 Corinthians 10 says Old Testament examples were also written for the
  benefit of Christians. Leviticus 24 tells God's people they are not to take advantage
  of "poor", fellow Israelites, by charging them interest or selling at a profit. It did not forbid charging interest to, or making a profit from sales to non-Israelites.

  Acts 4:32 ff., sets an even higher standard. Christians were voluntarily selling
  their possessions, to meet the needs of poor Christians, so there would be equality. No mention is made of Christians doing this for non-Christians.

  The NT calls on Christians to "remember the poor" (Gal. 2:10).

The practice of lending with interest to unbelievers who can afford it, was not prohibited in the Bible.

As far as borrowing with interest,

  Romans 13 says "Owe no man anything...". However, "owe" is in the present tense, not the perfect tense. Therefore, it doesn't necessarily mean never owe any man anything at any time, but may be interpreted as "don't keep on owing any man anything" (i.e. don't let your debts remain outstanding).

  With that understanding, a person who pays their monthly rent on time, is not allowing their debt to remain outstanding, but is paying it when it is due.

  We were actually paying as much in rent as we later paid in monthly mortgage, when purchasing a home. While Proverbs warns against becoming a slave to the lender, it was actually a better stewardship for us to take out a loan to buy a house (with interest), than it was to pay the same amount in rent, but without ownership or equity.

Christians may have come to accept the practice of borrowing with interest, because it can sometimes be better stewardship than paying rent.


Was the temple built in 46 years or was it 46 years old during Jesus' time? I stumbled on this verse again and would like some clarification:

  Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? John 2:20 (KJV)

Was the temple 46 years old at that time?
Was the temple built in 46 years?

If it's the second option, how could it be true that the temple took so long to build? Were they short of labour, money, etc.?

It means it took that long to build. This is apparent from the fact that they were challenging Christ's claim that He would build it in three days, when it's taken 46 years of work thus far.

From Barnes' Notes on the Bible

  Forty and six years ... - The temple in which they then were was that
  which was commonly called "the second temple," built after the return
  of the Jews from Babylon. See the notes at Matthew 21:12. This temple
  Herod the Great commenced repairing, or began to rebuild, in the
  eighteenth year of his reign - that is, sixteen years before the birth
  of Christ (Jos. 'Ant.,' b. xv. Section 1). The main body of the temple
  he completed in "nine years and a half" (Jos. 'Ant.,' xv. 5, 6), yet
  the temple, with its outbuildings, was not entirely complete in the
  time of our Saviour. Herod continued to ornament it and to perfect it
  even until the time of Agrippa (Jos. 'Ant.,' b. xx. chapter viii.
  Section 11). As Herod began to rebuild the temple sixteen years before
  the birth of Jesus, and as what is here mentioned happened in the
  thirtieth year of the age of Jesus, so the time which had been
  occupied in it was "forty-six years." This circumstance is one of the
  many in the New Testament which show the accuracy of the evangelists,
  and which prove that they were well acquainted with what they
  recorded. It demonstrates that their narration is true. Impostors do
  not trouble themselves to be very accurate about names and dates, and
  there is nothing in which they are more liable to make mistakes.


Are these citations from St. Ignacius of Loyola? There are two very known 'quotes' of St.Ignacius of Loyola, sometimes also atributed to St.Augustine:

  “Pray as if everything depended on God and work as if everything
  depended on you.”

and

  “Let this be the first rule of your undertakings: confide in God as if
  the success of those undertakings depended completely upon you and not
  at all upon God; nonetheless give your whole self to the undertakings
  as if you yourself would be doing nothing in them but God alone would
  be doing everything."

Are they true? In which writing of St.Ignacius do they show up? I know the 1st shows up in the CCI, paragraph 2834, but I want to know the original work, where this supposedly shows up.

Any help would be appreciated.

According to the source that you cited regarding the first quote, which is CCI paragraph 2834, this is taken from a book that attributes it to St. Ignatius of Loyola.  The book was published in 1964 called "The Jesuits: Their Spiritual Doctrine and Practice".  Available here http://jesuitsources.bc.edu/the-jesuits-their-spiritual-doctrine-and-practice-a-historical-study/

122 Attributed to St. Ignatius Loyola, cf. Joseph de Guibert, SJ, The Jesuits: Their Spiritual Doctrine and Practice, (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1964), 148, n. 55.

There is no direct correlation, quote or anything else from St Ignatius.  There is many resources available regarding his many writings and guides for prayer and interior life.
Such as the following, just to give an idea....
http://jesuitsources.bc.edu/the-writings-of-saint-ignatius-of-loyola-cd-rom/

I have personally read many (not a majority or all) writings and reflections from St Ignatius an those that follow Ignatian Spirituality, and that quote could sum up many of the points and objectives.  I feel that it could have been stated by St. Ignatius at some point, but not necessarily written down.  That may not have even been what he might have said, but that may have been a paraphrasing that accurately described his message that stuck.  It's much easier than remembering the 15 page letter or a 10 minute sermon he had it could have been extrapolated from.

The second quote, I have also seen attributed to St. Ignatius of Loyola and people will often just quote it as whole without a source.  Again, I have not seen a direct source in any of the readings I have come across and I have found it had to even find one with direct source.  Most sources will refer to Fr John Padberg, who is a an Ignatian Scholar and has written many books.  All of his books are written in more modern times (1980 - today).  You can find his books on Amazon, and I think in his book "Ignatius of Loyola: Letters and Instructions" is where he first attributes that quote to hi.

https://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&page=1&rh=n%3A283155%2Cp_27%3AJohn%20W.%20Padberg


Slavery in the classical ancient Christianity Did Jesus recognize slavery and accepted it?
In other words, What was his opinion about slavery or slaves?
N.b.
Maybe we can understand it also according to the written evidence we have, based on what was the opinion of the classical ancient Christians when Christianity was more homogenous. Maybe some holy figures in the new testament who had slaves. I'm trying to outline the information we know about this issue.

From various passages in Isaiah, you can assemble a list of signs that Messiah would perform.

61 The Spirit of the Sovereign Lord is on me,
because the Lord has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
to proclaim freedom for the captives
and release from darkness for the prisoners, 2 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor
and the day of vengeance of our God, to comfort all who mourn, 3     and provide for those who grieve in Zion (Isaiah 61, NIV)

In that day the deaf will hear the words of the scroll,
and out of gloom and darkness
the eyes of the blind will see. (Isaiah 29:18)

John the Baptist knew this, and so he asked Jesus if he was the messiah, because the list of things Jesus had performed  was not the complete list he expected.

18 John’s disciples told him about all these things. Calling two of
them, 19 he sent them to the Lord to ask, “Are you the one who is to
come, or should we expect someone else?”
20 When the men came to Jesus, they said, “John the Baptist sent us to
you to ask, ‘Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect
someone else?’”
21 At that very time Jesus cured many who had diseases, sicknesses and
evil spirits, and gave sight to many who were blind. 22 So he replied
to the messengers, “Go back and report to John what you have seen and
heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy
are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is
proclaimed to the poor. 23 Blessed is anyone who does not stumble on
account of me.” (Luke 7, NIV)

If you compare the lists, one very important sign was missing, important to John because it concerned him:
The freeing of the captives. This includes all who are unjustly imprisoned and all slaves, like John himself.
The freeing of the captives was a sign that Jesus left for the church to fulfill. Healings were a personal blessing to individuals. Setting prisoners free requires a change to government. What did Jesus say about that?

6 Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are you at this
time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?”
7 He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the
Father has set by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when
the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in
Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the
earth.” (Acts 1)

Fundamental, night-and-day change to government by Messiah will occur at the second coming. Slow improvements in government and the accumulation of civil rights and justice has been the work of the church, slowly learning this by the Holy Spirit and making many mistakes along the way.


For Catholics who have expressed concern about Pope Francis and are wary of his pontificate, what are the key issues? Ever since his election on March 13, 2013, Pope Francis has electrified the world and is a media sensation

But among Catholics, who it is said tend to love their Popes to a fault, the reception of him is divided [cf. Watch out Pope Francis: the Catholic civil war has begun]. This is by no means limited to Catholics among Christians (e.g. Lee Duigon , Russell D. Moore, and Baptist Press).

For Catholics who have expressed concern about Pope Francis and are wary of his pontificate, what are the key issues?

Catholics generally fall into three (not-necessarily-exclusive) camps regarding their questioning of Francis's orthodoxy and Catholicity:

There are those who recognize Francis as a promoter of

the errors and heresies of Vatican II.

Very few faithful have enough time to study and read to understand
this (Abp. Lefebvre's short Open Letter to Confused Catholics is an
excellent aid, though.), but the errors they identify are chiefly
relativism of truth (i.e., Modernism, the "synthesis of all heresies"), from which follows

ecumenism (religious indifferentism),
collegiality (that the body of bishops is a head of the Church alongside but not subjected to the Pope; viz., that the Church is governed by a two-headed monster…), and
religious liberty (the Masonic idea that man has a fundamental right to spread error and publicly practice false religions).

Most sedevacantists and SSPX adherents recognize this.

error and heresy against faith.

Many traditionalist Catholics recognize this.
e.g., Francis's Evangelii Gaudium §247 gives the heresy that the Old Covenant is still valid and that Jews don't need "to turn from idols and to serve the true God."
Francis

saying "there is no Catholic God"
supporting tritheism and atheism, saying "God does not exist!…There is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit!"

moral errors.

Even neocon Novus Ordo Catholics and some Protestants (e.g., conservative Evangelicals) see this.
e.g., the mid-term report of the Synod on the Family, which said there are goods in homosexuality. [Cf. this RORATE CÆLI article: Cardinal Baldisseri: the Pope was personally aware and personally approved the relatio post disceptationem].
Francis dismissing the gravity of homosexuality by flippantly saying: "Who am I to judge?" (interview full-text)
Francis demoting, without explanation, Cardinal Burke, a strong defender of traditional marriage and the right to life of unborn people. (This was the first time in over 50 years that a cardinal had been demoted.)
"Dubia cardinals" accusing Francis of heresy against even moral norms

#1 leads to #2 which, in turn, leads to #3. Most people, even Protestants, are now recognizing #3. Soon, it seems, more people will recognize #1 and #2 cause #3.

  Note:
  A correspondent in Argentina [...] writes that only three
  views of this pope exist:
  1) he is a modernist, but covers himself by occasionally talking of the devil,
  2) he seeks attention and power by attracting everything to himself, and
  3) he is a confused thinker but basically orthodox.
  The man adds that this last view is no longer tenable.
  Source: On Heretical Popes, by James V. Schall S.J. | The Catholic Thing.


Are there any Christian congregations that follow the example of 1 Cor 14:24-25 to win unbelievers for Christ? In 1 Corinthians 14:24-25, Paul teaches an extremely effective way to win souls for Christ, when an unbeliever or outsider steps for the first time into a Spirit-filled congregation:

24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, 25 the secrets of his heart are disclosed, and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you. [ESV]

Are there any Christian congregations that follow this example?

This is going to be a partial answer, but probably as good as you are going to get.
There are certainly congregations that practice prophecy in their open worship services. Many Pentecostals do. There is at least the possibility that a member of the congregation will prophecy aloud something that "discloses the secrets of the heart" of an outsider present.
Whether this happens often is an excellent question. Churches do not plan for particular kinds of prophecy. A true prophetic message is always initiated by God. A church cannot say "let us now prophecy things that will disclose the secrets of someone's heart" without running the risk of attempting to control God and hence blasphemy. A much more appropriate attitude is to be ready for whatever prophetic message God wishes to send.
It is also not guaranteed that anyone affected in such a way will choose to make their experience public. It may remain private to them, or private to them and the church.
There are examples of such things occurring. You might start by reading the books of John Wimber. This article by John Piper, identified by GratefulDisciple, also gives some specific examples.


Did Jesus or 'an expert in the law' first share the greatest commandments? In Luke 10.25-29 you have a teacher of the law asking Jesus how to inherit eternal life and then that same teacher of the law answering the question with the two greatest commandments

But then in Matthew 22.34-40 you have a pharisee (and an expert in the law) asking Jesus what the greatest commandment is and Jesus then answering with the greatest commandments.

So 1) are these two different situations or the same situation described differently? and 2) who first shared the greatest commandments, Jesus, the expert in the law or someone else?

What we today call the "two great commandments" were well-known in Jesus' day

Both commandments had been previously given by Jehovah.

  1st Great Commandment: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. (KJV Deut. 6:5)

  2nd Great Commandment: Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord. (KJV Lev. 19:18)

So it depends on what you mean by "shared."

Jehovah was the first to express the ideas.
Moses was the first to write the ideas down.
Whomever taught the lawyers of the New Testament the doctrine were before Jesus or the lawyers.

As I led off, the two great commandments were well-known doctrines of the day.  They were not introduced first by either Jesus or the lawyers in the New Testament, but were introduced by Moses via Jehovah in the Old Testament and would have been regularly studied in the rabbinical schools.  I believe it is reasonable to assume that both the lawyers and Jesus learned the two commandments as children.

… Which is why Jesus' response to the lawyer in Luke 10:26 makes perfect sense.

However, if what you're asking is, "but in that specific situation (or situations), who introduced the idea first, the lawyers or Jesus?" that I can't help you with.  I hope I was a spiritual observer, but that veil has been drawn and I doubt there's enough historical evidence to be definitive.


List of papal teachings considered infallible After reading When does the Pope speak ex cathedra? I became curious and searched for a list of statements, but couldn't find one.

Does such list exist and if not, why is this the case?

There is no canonical list of infallible statements made by the Pontiffs: while there are only a few instances where a Pontiff spoke infallibly ex cathedra (an extraordinary action), there are many times where he is speaking about things known to be infallible of the ordinary and universal Magisterium.
To the extraordinary sense—when a Pontiff speaks infallibly ex cathedra—there two officially recognized cases.
First about the Immaculate Conception by Pius IX:

...by the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own: "We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful."
Hence, if anyone shall dare—which God forbid!—to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church...

And second about the Assumption of Mary by Pius XII:

... by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma:

that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.

But there may be other instances before Pius IX's pronouncement in 1854 about the Immaculate Conception, not officially mentioned as infallible ex cathedra pronouncements, that count: Wikipedia has one possible list. As Wikipedia notes, because of the scrutiny an ex cathedra statement would get, the Vatican has taken to clarifying when a statement made by the Holy Father is, in fact, is an infallible statement done ex cathedra, and it hasn't happened since Pius XII's pronouncement about the Assumption of Mary.
In the ordinary sense—when a Pontiff speaks about things that are known to be infallible by the ordinary and universal Magisterium—it gets a little tricky. Then Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (now Pope Benedict XVI) mentions in his Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio Fidei about the case of euthanasia:

A similar process can be observed in the more recent teaching regarding the doctrine that priestly ordination is reserved only to men. The Supreme Pontiff, while not wishing to proceed to a dogmatic definition, intended to reaffirm that this doctrine is to be held definitively,32 since, founded on the written Word of God, constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.33 As the prior example illustrates, this does not foreclose the possibility that, in the future, the consciousness of the Church might progress to the point where this teaching could be defined as a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed.
The doctrine on the illicitness of euthanasia, taught in the Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae, can also be recalled. Confirming that euthanasia is "a grave violation of the law of God," the Pope declares that "this doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church's Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium".34 It could seem that there is only a logical element in the doctrine on euthanasia, since Scripture does not seem to be aware of the concept. In this case, however, the interrelationship between the orders of faith and reason becomes apparent: Scripture, in fact, clearly excludes every form of the kind of self-determination of human existence that is presupposed in the theory and practice of euthanasia.

In a nutshell, the ordinary and universal Magisterium teaches us certain things are evil, and while there may be no mention of a new issue (because it hasn't come up before), the ordinary teachings of the Magisterium can still guide infallible teachings about the new issue without speaking infallibly ex cathedra.
And this happens pretty often: one of the main roles of the clergy, including the Holy Father, is to help guide and instruct based on the ordinary teachings of the Magisterium.


According to Catholic teaching, where does the disorder stem from? According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church,

  homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always
  declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law [cf. CCC 2357], and the inclination to homosexual tendencies is objectively disordered [cf. CCC 2358].

This disorder, as the Church terms it, is not limited only to homosexuality. For example, the disorder in man, that say, leads to discord to the marriage union.

One comment in this article said,

  My "natural action" has ALWAYS been homosexual [...]

Noting that to the online commenter, the inclination is "natural" to them, based on her faith, from where does the Church teach the disorder(s) in man comes from?

The answer will also define what "intrinsically disordered" means.

Related: Does God create some people Heterosexual and others Homosexual? [closed] | C.SE.

As far as I know, the Catholic Church hasn't made any statement about the origins of homosexuality.

The best way to understand this perspective of homosexuality as a "disorder" is as a mental or emotional disorder.

To be clear, the Catholic Church hasn't actually called it that, but that is similar to how it has been described, both in your quoted material and elsewhere.

There are a lot of disorders: anorexia, OCD, schizophrenia, alchoholism, pornography addiction, bipolar disorder, etc. Identifying a single "source" would be complex and difficult. Genetics, environment, and individual choices all contribute. But regardless of the origin, these are all out of place, and we should see help from therapists, family, friends, and Christ to overcome them.

As for intrinsic, Merriam-Webster defines it as "belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing". Thus, intrinsically disordered means inherently incorrect. Homosexuality is not conditionally or occasionally appropriate; it is incorrect in and of itself.

Your quote also says that homosexual tendencies are objectively disordered, which means it is wrong even from an impartial viewpoint. Put those together, and Catholicism sees homosexuality as fundamentally and clearly out of place.


Is the "sinner's prayer" important for salvation and why? In evangelical churches the sinner's prayer is a very much emphasized aspect for someone to become or convert to being a Christian. In fact, most church services I attended growing up ended with the pastor inviting anyone in the congregation who wanted to be saved to pray it.

Now, when I was very young, my parents actually compelled me to pray the prayer, thereby  defeating the purpose of the prayer. For years I struggled with the question of whether or not I was actually 'saved' or not, since I had not actually prayed it under my own volition.

What is the meaning or purpose of this prayer in the context of becoming or being a Christian?
Should I (or those in a similar situation) pray it again?
What about people that pray it earnestly, then reject their faith and then come back to it again?

The sinners prayer has no place in Christ's Gospel
Why did Christ die? Have you thought about that? If Christ was somebody that everybody loved, why was the entire town chanting that He be killed? Have you thought about that?

John 15:25 NKJV
But this happened that the word might be fulfilled which is written in
their law, ‘They hated Me without a cause.’

WAIT A MINUTE! I thought that everybody loved Christ??  Read further.... you must always read further...

John 7:7 NKJV
The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify of it
that its works are evil.

No, the world HATED Jesus Christ, because Christ came and told them that they were sinners and then He told them that they had to repent or they would go to Hell. We learned more about Hell from our Lord Christ than we did from all of the other prophets put together.
Jesus Commanded!

Mark 1:14-15 NKJV
14 Now after John was put in prison, Jesus came to Galilee,
preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, 15 and saying, “The time
is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe
in the gospel.”

Isn't it funny that you never hear Jesus taking people aside and having them repeat a prayer..? Ever thought about that? Don't you think that somebody would have been smart enough to ask Jesus how to be saved? What do you think He said to them? "Say this prayer?" haha! Never!

Luke 10:25-28 NKJV
And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested Him, saying,
“Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”
26 He said to
him, “What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?”  27 So
he answered and said, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all
your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all
your mind,’ and ‘your neighbor as yourself.’”
28 And He said to
him, “You have answered rightly; do this and you will live.”

Jesus answered that we needed to obey the commandments....  But I thought that was work? Let's keep reading..

Romans 13:8 NKJV
Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves
another has fulfilled the law.
Romans 13:10
Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of
the law.
Galatians 5:14
For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: “You shall
love your neighbor as yourself.”
Matthew 22:38-40 (NKJV)
38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like
it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two
commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”
Mark 12:31
And the second, like it, is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as
yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

LOVE LOVE LOVE!
It's all about loving people. Not by just telling people that you love them though! It's about actually going out and DOING. Going out and taking care of the widows and the orphans, not cursing people on the road, turning the other cheek and showing your enemy that you forgive them even after they spit in your face.

John 15:17
These things I command you, that you love one another.
John 15:12
This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.
John 15:10
If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have
kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love.
John 14:21
He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And
he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and
manifest Myself to him.”
John 14:15
“If you love Me, keep My commandments.
1 John 5:3
For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And
His commandments are not burdensome.

Are you beginning to see?
The sinner's prayer wraps all of the mentions of salvation into a thirty second "repeat after me" that is all about yourself! The sinners prayer has nothing to do with this command to love it completely throws it out the window.
Paul Washer IS your man on this one. Here's a clip from one of his sermons: Declaring War on The Sinner's Prayer
THIS IS THE GOSPEL
Understand that people DO NOT want to love one another. This is why they keep throwing the idea out! Go listen to your pastor next weekend and I guarantee that his message will be about "a better life now" or some other BS.
The Bible is here to tell us how much we HATE one another and how much we HATE GOD. It's no wonder that God has been transformed into Santa Claus.
Go to God now and fall on your face and ask for forgiveness, because of your wickedness!
What about faith?

Galatians 5:6 (NKJV)
6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails
anything, but faith working through love.
James 2:24  (NKJV)
24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith
only.
1 Corinthians 13:13
And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of
these is love.

This is not an option
Let's get one thing clear. This is not an option. You MUST turn from your wickedness and if you do not then you will be sent to Hell.

2 Timothy 2:19 (NKJV)
19 Nevertheless the solid foundation of God stands, having this seal:
“The Lord knows those who are His,” and, “Let everyone who names the
name of Christ depart from iniquity.”
Matthew 7:22-23 (NKJV)
22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not
prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many
wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never
knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’
Luke 6:46
“But why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do the things which I
say?

In the last days this is exactly how you will be judged

Revelation 20:12
And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books
were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life.
And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which
were written in the books.
Revelation 20:13
The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered
up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according
to his works.

Conclusion
You will never find in the gospel of Christ that you need to repeat a prayer in order to be saved. Know that the only place in the Bible that mentions "faith alone" was in James 2 when James said that it is not by faith alone.
Throw out that prayer and call out to God to be saved! When God grants you repentance He will take you under His authority and HE will teach you Himself, about Himself. Your eyes will be opened and you will WANT to obey Him.


What is the difference between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven? I did a search and saw that the phrase "Kingdom of Heaven" appears exclusively in the Gospel according to Matthew.  However, the phrase "Kingdom of God" appears a few times in Matthew, but is also quite prevalent in Mark and Luke.  It also appears twice in John 3, several times in Acts and Paul's letters.

Clarence Larkin has a diagram that seems to distinguish between the two kingdoms somehow as well:

What, then, is the difference or distinction between these two kingdoms?

The idea of a kingdom in the biblical sense is not just a sphere under the royal power of a monarch, but a living supra terrestrial life of which God sits on a throne as a redeemer, priest, prophet, judge and king. All in this sphere are redeemed by his blood and born into this invisible realm by faith.  Jehovah in Christ is their God, master and royal Lord.  Christ is that single person who possesses everything under his rule and so he is filled with royal glory.

The idea of God's kingdom is related to those images found in David and promised in Messiah, but it is God himself in his divinity that is the root of the definition:

And they were calling to one another: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord Almighty; the whole earth is full of his glory.” At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook and the temple was filled with smoke.  “Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty.” (Isaiah 6:3-5, NIV)

As far as the term 'kingdom of God' verses 'kingdom of heaven' there is no difference. Mathew wrote primarily to a Jewish audience that preferred to avoid the term God, as it was taboo to speak his holy name. However, the other evangelists seem to prefer 'kingdom of God' as Gentiles would more easily understand the Messianic aspect from that term, rather then revert to their own philosophical notions of 'heaven'.


Is there a Patron Saint against the coronavirus? Does the Catholic Church have a “Patron Saint against the pandemic caused by the coronavirus”?

Does the Catholic Church have a “Patron Saint against the pandemic caused by the coronavirus”?
This is just so much of a coincidence that it must be stated in the affirmative: Yes, there is a patron saint against pandemics and her name is St. Corona.
We have a new reason to hope!
Patron saints can be established at any moment, when there is a great need or the devotion is found to be in growing veneration. Even if historically, St. Corona has not been invoked against pandemics, many of the Catholic faithful are now so doing now in the present Covid-19 situation, making her the new patron saint against the coronavirus.
Some argue saints often acquire their patronage by accident or due to public consensus, making Saint Corona’s newly-minted title just as valid as any other. In any case, Aachen Cathedral hopes the shrine and relics will now garner increased attention once they can be exhibited for public veneration.
St. Corona Novena to end the Coronavirus Pandemic
Although many Catholic are invoking St. Corona as the patron saint against the coronavirus, St. Roch also remains a patron saint against pestilence and the plague. St. Sebastián and St. Thomas of Antioch are equally patron saints against the plagues and pestilence.
Saint Rosalia is the patron saint of Palermo she is believed to have saved the Sicilian city from the plague in 1624.
And finally, Saint Rita is the patron saint of lost and impossible causes, sickness, wounds, marital problems, abuse and mothers.
St. Corona is also invoked by those connected to gambling and treasure hunting.

Were you — out of quarantine boredom perhaps — to Google "patron saint of pandemics," you might be surprised by the results.
"It's incredible but it's seemingly true – there is a Saint Corona and she is one of the patrons of pandemics," according to the website of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Lansing, Michigan.
Even more incredible, the diocese claims, the remains of the second-century saint are in northern Italy, the epicenter of the recent outbreak of the coronavirus in Europe.
The diocese cites Gloria.tv, a website for Catholic news and memes, as its source for the claims about St. Corona.
St. Corona's purported patronage against pandemic and plague also has been pointed out on social media and on popular Catholic website Aleteia. - Is St. Corona the patron saint of pandemics?

In Anzù, Northern Italy, the hotbed of the coronavirus in Europe, is a basilica where the relics of Saint Victor and Saint Corona are being preserved since the 9th century.
Saint Corona was only fifteen when she professed her Christian Faith during the persecution of the Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius around 165.
Corona was arrested and tied by her feet to the tops of two palm trees which were bent to the ground. When the palms were let loose she was torn apart. According to the Roman Martyrology, this happened in Syria.
Saint Corona is especially venerated in Austria* and Bavaria as the Patron Saint against epidemics.
Her feast day is May 14.*
There is a Saint Corona, And she is the Patron Saint against plague and epidemics.

Martyrdom of St. Corona.

Sebastian ordered St. Corona, who had proclaimed her allegiance to Christ, to be tied to the tops of two palm trees, which had been bent to the ground. At his signal, the ropes holding the trees were cut, forcing them to spring back to an upright position — ripping apart St. Corona's body. - St. Corona Rediscovered

Sancta Corona, Ora pro nobis.
St. Corona, patroness of epidemic victims, pray for us.
St. Corona is invoked in connection involving making money,such as gambling or treasure hunting. Gregory the Great, Roch, and Sebastian are all listed as patron saints of plagues, Robert Bellarmine is the patron saint of contagious disease (along with Sebastian, again), and Godeberta is the patron saint of epidemics. That said, just because St. Corona has not historically been considered a patron saint of disease doesn’t mean that she can’t be now. Unlike the highly formal process of becoming a saint in the first place, there’s no official protocol for being named a patron saint of any given subject.

Recently, the popes have named patron saints, but patron saints can be chosen by other individuals or groups as well. Patron saints are often chosen today because an interest, talent, or event in their lives overlaps with the special area.
There’s no time limit on choosing a new patronage for a saint, there’s no minimum number of people who need to agree on it, and there’s no statute against picking a subject that didn’t even exist while the saint was alive. For example, Pope Pius XII declared St. Clare the patron saint of television in 1958, even though Clare, born in 1194, would’ve been completely baffled by the word television alone.
In short, if you want to consider St. Corona the patron saint of epidemics or anything else, you’re not breaking any rules, according to Catholicism.

For more information about St. Corona, the following articles may be of interest:

St. Corona, pray for us
A German Cathedral Plans to Display Its Shrine to Saint Corona, Who It Says Is the Patron Saint of Epidemics
The True Significance of St. Corona, the Viral Saint
Saint Corona - Pandemic Casts Spotlight on a Nearly Forgotten Martyr

*Churches in Austria to reopen from 15 May. Is this just another coincidence?
The coronavirus  or covid-19 virus is so called because under a microscope, it looks like a globe with little globules, resembling a crown.


What was Isaac Watts' theological background? Isaac Watts has often been called "the Father of English Hymnody."  He is responsible for many of my favorite hymns:

Joy to the world (arranged by Lowell Mason to an older melody originating from Handel)
Come ye that love the Lord (often sung with the chorus [and titled] "We’re marching to Zion")
O God, Our Help in Ages Past
When I survey the wondrous cross
Alas! and did my Saviour bleed

and many, many others.  I've seen his hymns in Baptist, Anglican, and Methodist hymnals, so I'm assuming he's Protestant in some fashion (although I'd love to know if he is in Catholic hymnals), but I don't know what tradition he himself was.

Does he he make a confession in a particular denomination?

Quoth Wikipedia:

  Likewise, Isaac Watts held religious opinions that were more non-denominational or ecumenical than was at that time common for a Nonconformist; he had a greater interest in promoting education and scholarship than preaching for any particular ministry.

The general consensus is that Watts' father was a dissenter and that Watts followed suit. No denomination truly claim him as "one of their own". That said, his particular congregation was independent in 18th century UK. Now, while that does not necessarily mean that he was of Puritan stock, it means that he was far closer to that than, say, Presbyterian. And, FWIW, the Puritan church in the US predominantly became Congregationalists.

Realize that this edit is a bit old, but I can confirm O God Our Help and When I Survey are in at least one modern Catholic hymnal.


As a protestant, may I participate in the Eucharist (Communion) when visiting a Catholic church? I think the title sums it up.  I'm a protestant Christian, and have many Catholic friends. When I visit their churches, is it permissible for me to participate in the Eucharist/Communion ceremony by partaking of the bread and wine?

The answer is: "more than likely not".

Catholics do allow others to take part in the Holy Communion, but they maintain tight restrictions on this.

  Guidelines for the Reception of Communion

  For Other Christians

  ... Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life, and worship, members of those churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted to Holy Communion.

  ...Members of the Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church are urged to respect the discipline of their own Churches. According to Roman Catholic discipline, the Code of Canon Law does not object to the reception of communion by Christians of these Churches.

  For Non-Christians

  ...While we cannot admit them to Holy Communion, we ask them to offer their prayers for the peace and the unity of the human family.

Link to article

So, when they say "not fully united", Protestants generally fall into this category.  (I'm not sure where those other churches fall in the "Protestant-Catholic" spectrum, so I'm leaving this a bit generic.)  So, therefore, Protestants are not admitted to Holy Communion.


What does it mean when Jesus say "Love your enemies" (Matthew 5:43-45)? This always confused me. We read this in Matthew 5:43-45

Matthew 5:43-45 (NIV) - “You have heard that it was said, Love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."

But we read that Jesus was severely angry with Jewish scholars (especially Pharisees and scribes) by calling them "hypocrites", "snakes", "offspring of vipers", "fools" etc in Matthew 23:13-36, Mark 7:6, etc.

We even see Jesus saying to Jews that their father is devil (John 8:44). Does this mean we are supposed to love our enemies, but hate God's enemies?

TL;DR Tough love is not hate

Judaism teaches that you should treat your enemy fairly. The laws of retribution, like "eye for an eye", are limitations on how much retribution you can do to someone. It's designed to promote justice over vengance. But Christ had this way of pushing you to go further than the Law required. So while the Law taught justice. Christ taught mercy.

But when Jesus was "on a rant" about the Jewish leadership, it wasn't hate. If you follow the news at all you've seen stories like the one about the fiery anti-gay preacher who was discovered having gay sex or the one about the man who murdered an abortion doctor in a church because the Bible says "Thou shall not kill". You've seen Christians who demand the strictest adherence to the most conservative reading of the Law while not being able to hold themselves to the same standard. This is what Jesus was addressing with the Jewish leaders. It was actually more on go beyond the letter of the Law. Don't just help someone because that's what the law says, help them because you care about them.

Several years ago I wrote an article about how I have to love the very people I want to hate most: our modern day Pharisees who preach hate and division in the name of Jesus. But, I don't have to love them because Christ told me to. I have to love them because I know exactly what it is to be wrong. I've been a hypocrite. I've been a liar. I've hurt people so badly that it's physically painful to even think about it. I am an enemy of God and I know that despite all of that God still loves me. The Bible, God's own Law, says that I'm free to hate them because they're my enemies but how can I hate them without hating myself. So I find myself forced to go beyond the law and love them. I want them to be better. I even correct them when I think it will do the most good. But, none of that means that I don't love them.


Catholic remembrance services for a death elsewhere? If a person dies and is given a Catholic funeral and service, but that person has a lot of family in a location that was too far away to attend the service, is there an official Roman Catholic service that can be held as a sort of "satellite funeral" for those who were unable to attend the actual service but wish to remember the person religiously? If not, what would usually be done in this situation?
I hope that made sense; I was struggling a bit with the wording.

Catholic remembrance services for a death elsewhere?
First of all, Catholic funeral services are traditionally held on the day of death and/or on the day of the funeral of an individual. In addition to this, some Catholics have a Requiem Mass celebrated on the 30th day after their death or even then the 1st anniversary of their death, in order to facilitate the need for others to attend the original date of the funeral services, which were unattainable by some for whatever reason.
In the Tridentine Rite this was more predominant than in the  New Rite, but nevertheless remain quite valid. It could be held anywhere and not only in the local of the person who died.
Just a reminder that eulogies not allowed at Catholic funerals. If any anniversaries are held in the Church some rules must be upheld.

The Vatican made that clear in 1989. In its Revised Order of Christian Funerals, it stated that "a brief homily based on the readings should always be given at the funeral liturgy, but never any kind of eulogy."
In 2000, Pope John Paul II restated the prohibition when he wrote “at the funeral mass there should, as a rule, be a short homily, but never a eulogy of any kind.”
The rationale is that eulogies are often considered the centrepiece of the service, and therefore detract from the mass and its central message, which is the Christian meaning of death. - [The rationale is that eulogies are often considered the centrepiece of the service, and therefore detract from the mass and its central message, which is the Christian meaning of death.-Eulogies not allowed at Catholic funerals

As for Requiem Masses via live feed or some other form of social media, you will have to talk to the pastor involved in these arrangements.


Are there any alternative / emergent views on John 10:22-ff? I'm just wondering if there is any other way of looking at the whole "I and the father are one" issue, and all that is this hugely important passage of the Bible.

As per the comment, I'll spell it out. Traditionally and in most Biblical commentaries, the passage is Jesus telling those around him that he is God. To quote the ESV commentary:

  Jesus’ claim that I and the Father are one (i.e., one entity—the Gk.
  is neuter; cf. 5:17–18; 10:33–38) echoes the Shema, the basic
  confession of Judaism, whose first word in Deut. 6:4 is shema‘ (Hb.
  “hear”). Jesus’ words thus amount to a claim to deity.

What I'm interested in are other viewpoints. Anything from Panenthism (see 10:34) or otherwise (i.e. extending the idea of the Logos within Sufism). Anything from the Emergent Church group would also be great.

I believe this generally refers to the purposes of God the Father and God the Son (Jesus). Jesus was sent to do the will of the Father, so in their purpose they are one. This is similar to the reference in John 17:21.

  "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee,
  that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou
  hast sent me."

The intent is not to describe Himself as the same Being as God, but to demonstrate unity in purpose. Similar statements might be a general saying "Let us fight as one!" or a president saying "The country must come together as one." Neither infer to coming together into one physical mass, but to be unified in desire, effort, and purpose.


According to Non-Trinitarians, why did God allow Trinitarianism to become the mainstream understanding of His nature? If God's nature is not adequately portrayed by Trinitarian theology, then why did God allow such an erroneous understanding of His nature to become so widespread among the members of the Church, the Bride of His Son? If God has the power and the prerogative to intervene in historical events, then why hasn't God made use of His divine privileges to ensure that the correct doctrine about His nature achieves widespread acceptance? How do Non-Trinitarians answer these questions?

(I assume that by "the Church" the OP includes the Roman Church and probably its Protestant daughter denominations too.)
This question implies that "the Church" is God's church.
The problem with this is that non-Trinitarians in general don't believe that what the question refers to as "the Church" is actually God's Church.
Jesus referred to the faithful as a "little flock" (Luke 12:32).
God's church is small:

“For many are called, but few are chosen.”
— Matthew 22:14

“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.
Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. — Matthew 7:13–14

The "god of this age" (2Corinthians 4:4), which most of nominal Christianity follows, is not the leader of God's church.

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. — Matthew 7:15

That organizations calling themselves "Christian" happen to teach false beliefs to their members in no way means that the members of God's Church hold these beliefs.

For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ.
And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light.
Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, …
— 2Colossians 11:13–15

The idea that God is currently trying to save the world is almost blasphemous.
It implies that his plan is failing miserably.
Only a few, the elect, will be saved during this age.

In fact, unless that time of calamity is shortened, not a single person will survive. But it will be shortened for the sake of God’s chosen ones.
— Matthew 24:22 (NLT)

By allowing the world to deteriorate until it is almost destroyed by mankind, God sets an example of what happens when people follow Satan and decide for themselves what is right or wrong.


In Catholicism, do scripted and unscripted prayers have equal importance to one's spiritual identity and development? By scripted prayer I mean prayers such as Our Father, Daily Bread, and Eucharistic prayers. I would also include prayers such as the Prayer of St. Francis of Assisi and Prayer to the Holy Spirit.

By unscripted prayer I mean something like, "God, please help me make it through tomorrow."

What does Catholicism teach regarding the importance of each type of prayer for one's spiritual identity and development?

Short answer: yes.

The point is to pray, or as the Apostle Paul exhorts the faithful, to pray continually. (1 Thessalonians 5:16-18).

  16 Rejoice always, 17 pray continually, 18 give thanks in all
  circumstances; for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus.

Prayer as God's gift

  CCC 2559 "Prayer is the raising of one's mind and heart to God or the
  requesting of good things from God."  But when we pray, do we speak
  from the height of our pride and will, or "out of the depths" of a
  humble and contrite heart?  He who humbles himself will be exalted;
  humility is the foundation of prayer, Only when we humbly acknowledge
  that "we do not know how to pray as we ought," are we ready to
  receive freely the gift of prayer.

It isn't so much "what" you pray but "how" you pray.  Pray from the heart.

  CCC 2562  Whether prayer is expressed in words or gestures, it is the
  whole man who prays.  But in naming the source of prayer, Scripture
  speaks sometimes of the soul or the spirit, but most often of the
  heart (more than a thousand times).  According to Scripture, it is
  the heart that prays.  If our heart is far from God, the words of
  prayer are in vain.

This encouragement to pray in all circumstances gets emphasis in the Catechism.

  CCC  2659 We learn to pray at certain moments by hearing the Word of
  the Lord and sharing in his Paschal mystery, but his Spirit is
  offered us at all times, in the events of each day, to make prayer
  spring up from us. Jesus' teaching about praying to our Father is in
  the same vein as his teaching about providence: time is in the
  Father's hands; it is in the present that we encounter him, not
  yesterday nor tomorrow, but today: "O that today you would hearken to
  his voice! Harden not your hearts."
  CCC 2660 Prayer in the events of each day and each moment is one of the
  secrets of the kingdom revealed to "little children," to the servants
  of Christ, to the poor of the Beatitudes. It is right and good to pray
  so that the coming of the kingdom of justice and peace may influence
  the march of history, but it is just as important to bring the help of
  prayer into humble, everyday situations; all forms of prayer can be
  the leaven to which the Lord compares the kingdom.

The Church teaches that prayer, when humbly offered from an open heart, is a form of (spiritual) communion.

  Prayer as communion
  CCC 2565 In the New Covenant, prayer is the living
  relationship of the children of God with their Father who is good
  beyond measure, with his Son Jesus Christ and with the Holy Spirit.
  The grace of the Kingdom is "the union of the entire holy and royal
  Trinity . . . with the whole human spirit."   Thus, the life of
  prayer is the habit of being in the presence of the thrice-holy God
  and in communion with him.   This communion of life is always possible
  because, through Baptism, we have already been united with Christ.

To sum up:  prayer isn't about importance, it is about reaching toward God from our hearts.  Worrying about "importance" misses the point of prayer.

Longer answer: the Lord's Prayer provides a perfect model of prayer for the faithful

The Catechism covers prayer in over 300 articles. (CCC 2558 - 2865).  I'd recommend reading it from first to last to get an overview of the teaching of prayer.  A wealth of references to prayer from scripture, saints and theologians are included in foot notes that flesh out the understanding of prayer as a key element of faith.  The Lord's Prayer has a detailed section to finish off the Catechism.  (Ending on a high note, as it were).

  CCC 2766 But Jesus does not give us a formula to repeat
  mechanically. As in every vocal prayer, it is through the Word of God
  that the Holy Spirit teaches the children of God to pray to their
  Father. Jesus not only gives us the words of our filial prayer; at the
  same time he gives us the Spirit by whom these words become in us
  "spirit and life." Even more, the proof and possibility of our filial
  prayer is that the Father "sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts,
  crying, 'Abba! Father!'" Since our prayer sets forth our desires
  before God, it is again the Father, "he who searches the hearts of
  men," who "knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit
  intercedes for the saints according to the will of God."

As above, it isn't just the words of the prayer, it is in opening one's heart up in prayer that prayer becomes the great gift from God.

  CCC 2611 The prayer of faith consists not only in saying "Lord, Lord,"
  but in disposing the heart to do the will of the Father. Jesus calls his disciples to bring into their prayer this concern for
  cooperating with the divine plan.

Some might conclude from the description "perfect" that The Lord's Prayer is more important.  It is certainly the great gift of prayer given by Jesus himself to his people.

  The Lord's Prayer is the most perfect of prayers.... In it we ask, not
  only for all the things we can rightly desire, but also in the
  sequence that they should be desired. This prayer not only teaches us
  to ask for things, but also in what order we should desire them. ~
  St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II, 83, 9.

But the Church does not teach that other prayers are less important.  It teaches that prayer is important, even crucial, to Christian life.

  "THE SUMMARY OF THE WHOLE GOSPEL"

  2761 The Lord's Prayer "is truly the summary of the whole gospel."
  "Since the Lord . . . after handing over the practice of prayer, said
  elsewhere, 'Ask and you will receive,' and since everyone has
  petitions which are peculiar to his circumstances, the regular and
  appropriate prayer [the Lord's Prayer] is said first, as the
  foundation of further desires."

You could call the Lord's Prayer the gateway prayer that opens up infinite doors in one's heart to God.   (On an experiential note, when I pray I most often start with the Lord's Prayer to get myself in a good prayerful state. It is a great start to any longer period of praying.  Other times, particularly when attending Adoration, my opening prayer is an extemporaneous salutation to Jesus as I sit in front of the Body of Christ, exposed on the monstrance).

  CCC 2762 After showing how the psalms are the principal food of Christian
  prayer and flow together in the petitions of the Our Father, St.
  Augustine concludes:

  Run through all the words of the holy prayers [in Scripture], and I do
  not think that you will find anything in them that is not contained
  and included in the Lord's Prayer.

The church teaches that prayer is important in spiritual development, and spiritual identity as one who is with God through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.  The point is to pray.  Quibbling over "importance" rather misses the point, as the disciples seemed to be missing the point in Luke 22:24-30.

  24 Now there was also a dispute among them, as to which of them should
  be considered the greatest.  25 And He said to them, “The kings of the
  Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those who exercise authority
  over them are called ‘benefactors.’  26 But not so among you; on the
  contrary, he who is greatest among you, let him be as the younger, and
  he who governs as he who serves.  27 For who is greater, he who sits
  at the table, or he who serves? Is it not he who sits at the table?
  Yet I am among you as the One who serves.

  28 “But you are those who have continued with Me in My trials.  29 And
  I bestow upon you a kingdom, just as My Father bestowed one upon Me,
  30 that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and sit on
  thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”

Come to the table, it doesn't matter where you sit.

Pray with your heart.


Why does Calvinism need the doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints if it believes in Unconditional Election? As I understand it, Unconditional Election means that God has already chosen who will be saved.

  Unconditional election is God's choice to save people regardless of their sin or any condition.

Why then is it necessary for the doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints to reiterate that salvation cannot be lost? Isn't that already part of Unconditional Election? It seems to be repetitive.

When the five points of Calvinism are looked at as distinct entities, then there does seem to be a bit of redundancy in there.   Part of the reason, though, for that is that the five points are emphasizing bullet-point highlights of a comprehensive theology, and they were done so as a retort to the five points of Arminianism, which follows:

Five Articles of Remonstrance (summarized)

  God has elected to save any person who responds to his grace.
  God's saving grace is offered freely to all, but is only sufficient for those who respond.
  All humans are sinful and incapable of being righteous. However, God has provided grace to enable them to respond to him.
  God's grace enables all good works, but human beings have the capacity to resist God and choose evil.
  God's grace and the power of the Holy Spirit enable believers to overcome sin if they are willing to persevere.

As it's presented in a fashion that aims to address specific issues, its presentation is naturally going to appeal to certain "common themes" while framing the underlying theology with certain key points in primary focus.  The perserverence of the saints specifically counters the fifth point of Arminianism.

Calvinism contends that because the saints are neccessarily new creatures (see Total Depravity/Total Inability), who have been elected solely according to God's will and not their own worthiness (see: unconditional election), and saved definitively by the shed blood the Christ (see: Particular/Limited Atonement) and effectively through the regeneration of the Holy Spirit (see : Irrisistible Grace), then those saints will necessarily, perservere to the end of their lives.

So, you're right, on first pass it does kind of seem redundant or unnecessary, but it's more of an extension of the preceeding points, and it specifically addresses a contrasting view.


Is it possible for an atheist to be moral? This question is one that hasn't been hit (although it's been approached).

Is it possible for a person to not believe in God but live according to a moral standard?  Or is belief in God a prerequisite for morality?

Morality, defined
In order to help refine this question a bit, we'll have to define morality as the parts of the Bible that tell us what is "right" or "wrong", excluding the parts that talk about how we should worship God.  (I know that practically invalidates the Bible, Christianity, and almost all doctrines on morality, but I can't think of a better way to make sense of this.)

I want to point out that I am seeking a Christian perspective on this.  This does refine the question to deal with morality of the Bible more so than the broader definition of morality.

If it is impossible for Atheists to be moral because they don't acknowledge the same source of morality that Christians recognize, then I would argue that it is also impossible for Christians to be moral, because neither do they fully understand the source of morality that they claim to attempt to adhere to.  And without full understanding, it is impossible to fully acknowledge the source of the morality.

Perhaps Christians can be "more" moral than Atheists (since they have a greater understanding of the source of morality), but since the question is asked in binary terms, I believe the binary answer is the same for both groups.

If on the other hand, morality is simply acting in accordance to a moral code, then it is certainly possible, if only in isolated incidents, for either Atheists or Christians to behave according to any given moral code.

Anyone is likely to behave according to any "code of conduct" occasionally, even by accident.

So my elevator answer would be: It is just as possible for Atheists to be moral as it is for Christians to be moral.


How is the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus interpreted? I have always been puzzled by this in Scripture.

Can someone clarify these points:

If Jesus was speaking of reality then 'The End' had technically already come. Is this correct?

From Hell it would appear we can see Heaven and speak to people in Heaven as they can see us.

The last point I have comes from Revelation.  We are taught that in the end everyone will live on earth.  It speaks that the pure and holy will walk past those who are un-pure and un-holy day after day to worship.

It also states that there are gates to Heaven which again have people outside them.  Can I assume then that Hell is basically everything outside of Heavens gates.

Why would Heaven even need gates?

First off I'd like to state that this is, in my opinion, clearly not a parable because the Bible does not state it as one like it does in these many citations:

Matthew 13:18
Luke 6:39
Luke 12:16
Luke 15:3
Luke 18:1
Luke 18:9
Luke 19:11

  If Jesus was speaking of reality then 'The End' had technically already come. Is this correct?

So, to answer this question, Jesus was in fact not only speaking of reality but also of a real happening. Lazarus and the rich man was not a parable, it was real. However, The End has not yet come. In fact, Hell is going to be destroyed as well and is simply a holding place for the souls that are lost. Revelation speaks of it in Revelation 20:14:

  And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

Note that both death (the fact that man must die for his sins) and hell are cast into the lake of fire. Furthermore, that is where the devil will end up according to Revelation 20:10:

  And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

So, the end has not yet come, but it's on its way.

  From Hell it would appear we can see Heaven and speak to people in Heaven as they can see us.

This now makes more sense now that we have revealed that hell is a holding place for souls, but let's concrete this a bit more and see clearly that heaven is a holding place for souls as well. So, let's look at Revelation 21:1:

  And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

Here we see that heaven, which is the holding place that Lazarus ascended to, is also destroyed and a new heaven and a new earth is built. So yes, those souls in hell can see those souls in heaven until both are destroyed.

  It also states that there are gates to Heaven which again have people outside them. Can I assume then that Hell is basically everything outside of Heavens gates.

I would say you don't assume that everything outside the gates of heaven is hell, the earth is outside the gates of heaven but is clearly defined as the earth in Genesis 1:1:

  In the beginning God created heaven, and earth.

So hell is a different creation all by itself.


Is the ASV Bible version Public Domain in Canada? Any other Bibles Public domain in Canada? I have found on Biblegateway.com that there is a list of Bibles that are in the Public Domain for the US including the ASV, but I am not sure if that also covers Canada.

In Canada, the copyright for a work usually expires 50 years after the death of the creator, at the end of the relevant calendar year.
https://copyright.ubc.ca/public-domain/#:~:text=In%20Canada%2C%20the%20copyright%20for,Domain%20on%201%20January%202052.
The ASV was originally published in 1901 and had its copyright renewed in 1929, giving it copyright end of life as 1979.  So looks like it is in Public Domain now.


What is the origin and development of the calender of the Western Church? Happy New Year.

So today, being the first Sunday in Advent, marks the beginning of a new year in the western church, that is the Roman Catholic Church, and those Protestant churches which are descended from it, such as the Lutherans, Anglicans, some in the Reformed tradition, Methodists, &c. How did the calender develop?

I am asking here about the more general "seasonal" calender--Advent, Christmas, Epiphany, Lent, Easter, and Pentecost seasons, not so much about the various days upon which one Saint or another is remembered.

According to a number of sources, liturgical calendars (which is what the 'church year' is more formally known) have been around in some form since the fourth century, and were fully developed (though not in  their present form) in medieval times. The liturgical seasons, and the celebration of saints days, were part of the same process. The Lutheran church and other Protestant churches retained the basic form when their division from the Roman church took place, dropping a large number of saints days but retaining others.

The actual seasons have remained largely unchanged since then, with most of the modifications (in both Protestant and Catholic circles) being to the saint days celebrated.


Is a Roman Catholic ever permitted to take the Anglican Eucharist? According to the Catholic catechisms or canon law, is it ever canonically acceptable or lawful for a Roman Catholic to take of the Anglican communion?

No.

Canon 844 says:

  Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone.

So Catholics may receive sacraments licitly from Catholic ministers alone.

There are exceptions. In the case of Communion

  Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

This applies where it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister, and only to ministers in Churches where the sacraments are valid.  Anglican Communion is not valid, because the Anglican priesthood is not valid. Therefore this exception does not apply.

There is a little wiggle room here, in that if the Anglican Holy Communion is not a valid sacrament at all, then the question of whether it is licit or illicit to take it  (i.e. physically eat the bread and drink the wine) seems not to arise.

However, the Catechism, paragraph 1400, also deals with Catholics taking Communion in Protestant Churches and says:

  Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, "have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders." It is for this reason that, for the Catholic Church, Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible. However these ecclesial communities, "when they commemorate the Lord's death and resurrection in the Holy Supper . . . profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory