Why did "versus populum" (instead of "ad orientem") become commonplace after Vatican II? Why did versus populum (the priest facing the congregation) become commonplace after Vatican II, when ad orientem ("facing east," with the priest's back to the congregation) was the norm before Vatican II? Did a Vatican II document prescribe versus populum?

No Vatican II document said that priests must face "toward the people" (versus populum). In fact, all Masses today can be celebrated ad orientem ("toward the east," the same direction the people face, which is toward the tabernacle).
During the aftermath of Vatican II, Otto Nussbaum's study, which concluded that versus populum was the norm in the first four centuries of Christianity (although this is disputed), influenced many modernists today who want to return Christianity to its "primitive roots." Versus populum is also in accord with Vatican II's relative anthropocentrism.
From the FIUV position paper "4: Liturgical Orientation":

Missale Romanum (2002), Institutio Generalis no 299:

‘Altare exstruatur a pariete seiunctum, ut facile circumiri et in eo celebration versus populum peragi possit, quod expedit ubicumque possibile sit.’ (‘Let the main altar be constructed separate from the wall so that one can easily walk around the altar and celebrate facing the people—which is desirable wherever possible.’

‘Quod’ (‘which is’) naturally refers to the first clause of the sentence, not the second, which is subordinate to it. See C.M. Cullen and J.W.  Koterski ‘The New IGMR and Mass versus populum’ Homiletic and Pastoral Review June 2001 pp51-54.


Help me locate a passage regarding driving out the Canaanites before Israel I have embedded in my memory that somewhere in the Old Testament there is a passage, where God says something to effect of:

  If you knew how evil these Canaanites were, you would not wonder why I drove them out / destroyed them.

For the life of me I can not remember the exact wording in any language I know.

Deut. 9 [NASB]

  1 “Hear, O Israel! You are crossing over the Jordan today to go in to dispossess nations greater and mightier than you, great cities
  fortified to heaven, 2 a people great and tall, the sons of the Anakim,
  whom you know and of whom you have heard it said, ‘Who can stand
  before the sons of Anak?’ 3 “Know therefore today that it is the LORD
  your God who is crossing over before you as a consuming fire. He will
  destroy them and He will subdue them before you, so that you may drive
  them out and destroy them quickly, just as the LORD has spoken to you.

  4 “Do not say in your heart when the LORD your God has driven them out before you, ‘Because of my righteousness the LORD has brought
  me in to possess this land,’ but it is because of the wickedness of
  these nations that the LORD is dispossessing them before you. 5 “It is
  not for your righteousness or for the uprightness of your heart that
  you are going to possess their land, but it is because of the
  wickedness of these nations that the LORD your God is driving them out
  before you, in order to confirm the oath which the LORD swore to your
  fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.


What is the reason that intercourse is required for a valid marriage? Within the Catholic Church, it is required to have intercourse with each other after marriage. But what is the reason behind this?

Intercourse is not necessary for the validity of a marriage.
The essence of marriage is the matrimonial consent (exchange of vows), not sexual intercourse.
St. Thomas Aquinas explains in Summa Theologica suppl. q. 42 a. 4 that carnal intercourse is not an integral part of marriage; in Summa Theologica III q. 29 a. 2 he explains how Sts. Joseph's and Mary's marriage was a true marriage, despite being a virginal marriage.
However, the ability to have intercourse is necessary for the validity of marriage. Permanently impotent people, for example, cannot validly contract marriage; impotency is an example of a diriment impediment, which is

A condition, circumstance, or situation that makes an action null and void in its intended effects. Thus an existing marital bond nullifies any attempt to enter a second marriage.

Canons 1083 ff. list all the diriment impediments that render marriage invalid.
Consummated vs. Unconsummated Marriages
These can both be valid marriages.
Consummated
A consummated marriage is

A marriage in which after the matrimonial contract is made husband and wife have marital intercourse. Contraceptive intercourse does not consummate Christian marriage. (Etym. Latin consummare, to bring into one sum, to perfect.)

In canon law, such a marriage is called ratum et consummatum ("ratified and consummated"). Only death dissolves the bond:

Can. 1141 A marriage that is ratum et consummatum can be dissolved by no human power and by no cause, except death.

Unconsummated
An unconsummated marriage is called ratum sed non consummatum ("ratified but not consummated"). Unconsummated marriages can be dissolved by the Pope if either or both parties decide to enter religious life. This is the so-called Petrine Privilege, because it requires the Pope's permission:

Can. 1142 For a just cause, the Roman Pontiff can dissolve a non-consummated marriage between baptized persons or between a baptized party and a non-baptized party at the request of both parties or of one of them, even if the other party is unwilling.


When was David born? I would like to know when David, the king of Israel, was born.

David was born 1041 bc, maybe plus or minus a year.

David was 30 years old when he began to reign and he reigned 40 years.(2 Sam 5:4)

Multiple lines of evidence put the end of his reign/start of the reign of Solomon at 971 BC.

The evidence is found in:-
1. Edwin Thiele's "Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings";

William Hamilton Barnes evidence from the Tyrian King Lists;
Kenneth Kitchen's evidence from Egyptian chronology;
1 Kings 6:1, Ezekiel 40.1 and Leviticus 25:9,10, together with
the Seder Olam.

The Seder Olam probably written in the second century AD says that Ezekiel's Jubilee in Ezekiel 40:1 was the 17th.  It was a Jubilee Year because in that year New Year's day, Rosh Hashanah, was on the 10th day of the month (see Leviticus 25:9,10). For 48 out of 49 years New Year's Day happens on the 1st day of the month.  The Jubilee Year happens every 49 years.  Ezekiel 40:1 is counted from the destruction of Jerusalem 587 BC, and was in 573 BC.

A translation of the Seder Olam says:

  And so it says (Ez. 40:1): “In 25th year of our exile, on the day of the New Year, on the tenth of the month, 14 years after the destruction of the of Jerusalem.” When did he Ezekiel have this vision? At the beginning of a Jubilee period. If they staid for 17 entire jubilee periods, how can there be an excess of 17 years?

See http://www.betemunah.org/sederolam.html and look at the section in part 2 under Joshua (chapters 11 and 12), and the paragraph starting "Caleb said to Joshua "I was 40 years old when Moses..", etc.

The author of the Seder Olam does not know how to find 17 "extra" years from the time of the beginning of the Jubilee Cycle to the 14 year after the destruction of Jerusalem (in 587 BC).  These difficulties of the author of the Seder Olam are not important to us.  What is important is that he says there were 17 jubilee cycles: for this assertion he must have had access to information held by the priests in Jerusalem which no longer exists.

573 BC + (17 jubilees * 49 years) = 573 + 833 = 1406 (year of entry into Canaan and year the Jubilee cycles first began)

1406 + 40 years in the wilderness = 1446 (date of exodus)

1446 - 479 (as per 1 Kings 6:1) = 967 BC (Temple of Solomon started to be built)

967 BC + 4 (as per 1 Kings 6:1) = 971 BC (Start of Solomon's, end of David's reign)

971 +70 (as per 2 Samuel 5:4) = 1041 BC (year of David's birth).

3 Extra Biblical evidences of the existence of David:-

In 1993 AD the "House of David" inscription was found at Tell Dan, the first extra Biblical evidence that David actually existed.  The inscription related to events in the year 841 BC, and defeat of Ahaziah.  "We thus gain a clear mention of David as dynastic founder of the kingdom of Judah about 150 years after his death". (See "On the Reliability of the Old Testament" by Kenneth Kitchen, Eerdmans, (2003), pages 92,93 and 615).

The stela of Mesha king of Moab also mentions the "House of David" from about the same time.  "This was some six generations after his (David's) death" (Kitchen, page 93).

Shoshenq I of Egypt lists his achievements at Karnak.  One of the places he speaks of which is in south Judah/Negev region is a place called "Heights of David".  This would have been within 50 years of David's death.  (Kitchen, p93)

Postscript:
I should have provided a link to the archaeologist Eilat Mazar's article, first published early 2006:  "Did I find King David's Palace?" :-
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-sites-places/jerusalem/did-i-find-king-davids-palace/


Have any popes explicitly expressed disapproval of the inclusion of homosexual priests, including the nonpracticing, into the priesthood? A 2002 Los Angeles Times poll of 1,854 priests in the US  found that 9% of the priests surveyed marked themselves as homosexual with 6% identifying as 'somewhere in between but more on the homosexual side'. These numbers are significantly higher than the general population's number of self-identifying homosexuals, which is around 3.8%. It is thought that a large number of homosexual priests entered the clergy in the 70's and 80's.

Have any popes, with or without the knowledge of these statistics, ever clearly and straightforwardly frowned upon the idea of allowing homosexuals, specifically including nonpracticing ones, into seminaries? If so, what was the general thought process involved in this view?

There is a document issued by the Congregation for Catholic Education (which oversees among other thing the seminary formation of priests) issued in 2005 that goes into detail about policies for admitting those with homosexual tendencies to the priesthood: it has the rather long title Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders

This document is normative (i.e., it has force of law) for seminaries, and it says, in a nutshell, that those who currently have deep-seated homosexual tendencies should not be admitted to the diaconate. (Evidently, much less should they be admitted to the priesthood, since the diaconate is the first degree of Holy Orders, necessary before becoming a priest.) They should not be admitted to Holy Orders, because being a priest requires that a person have the ability to form healthy relationships with the men and women they encounter in their ministry. Deep-seated homosexual tendencies, which are not, of course, sinful in and of themselves, nevertheless place a serious obstacle to the kinds of relationships that priests need to develop with the faithful they minister to.

However, the document says that those who have clearly overcome such tendencies for at least three years could be admitted to the diaconate, provided the other elements that go into vocational discernment are in place: desire on the part of the candidate to be a priest, a positive judgment of worthiness on the part of his formators, a healthy moral and spiritual life, a good prayer life, and so on. (In most dioceses, transitional deacons are ordained priests a year or two after their diaconal ordination, the minimum interval being six months.)

The document is very thorough and succint, and it serves as a good explanation of the Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality in general, as well as how the Church applies that teaching to admitting men to the priesthood.

As regards the statistics, I am sure that the Congregation for Catholic Education is well aware of them, and it is doubtless partly in response to them that it issued this document.

(I should point out that the L.A. Times poll does not appear to be scientific, and it seems to me that the numbers are rather high. Nevertheless, the Church does recognize that there is a historic problem of admitting men with homosexual tendencies to the priesthood, and has moved to stop it, as can be seen.)


What is the Jehovah's Witness official viewpoint of 12-step programs like AA? I've been meeting with a Jehovah's Witness lately for some study. I've asked questions similar to this and not received a clear/official answer - just an opinion. I've searched Google and only found the opinions and experiences of Witnesses who secretly use AA (Alcoholics Anonymous) or ex-Witnesses sharing their ideas. From those stories I think I have an idea of what the answer is, but I'm wondering what the official stance is (and why) if one exists.

An article entitled “Breaking the Chains of Alcohol Abuse” in a 2005 Awake article
gives some excellent advice to those struggling to overcome alcoholism.
In it, we find an acknowledgment that many will need professional help to get well.

Then we read what is an official statement about organizations that offer help:

  There are many treatment centers, hospitals, and recovery programs that can provide help. Jehovah’s Witnesses do not endorse any particular treatment. Care must be exercised so that one does not become involved in activities that would compromise Scriptural principles. In the final analysis, however, each will have to decide for himself what type of treatment is needed.

A similar statement is made  in a 2010 Watchtower article entitled “Keeping Alcohol in its Place”


Are Orthodox Christians all the same faith? I've noticed some churches in my area that are titled things like:
"Greek" Orthodox
"Russian" Orthodox
"Serbian" Orthodox
"Antiochian" Orthodox etc...

Are these all the same type of Christian Church?

This kinda falls into general reference territory.  There are two major groups of "Orthodox" churches.

The Eastern Orthodox Church is one large group of churches that share a common theology. It separated from the Catholic Church (or vice versa, depending on your POV) in 1054 AD.

  Thus many Orthodox Churches adopt a national title (e.g. Albanian
  Orthodox, Bulgarian Orthodox, Georgian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox,
  Russian Orthodox, Macedonian Orthodox, Montenegrin Orthodox, Romanian
  Orthodox, Serbian Orthodox, Ukrainian Orthodox etc.) and this title
  serves to distinguish which language, which bishops, and which of the
  typica is followed by that particular congregation. In the Middle
  East, Orthodox Christians have also been often referred as Roman (or
  Rum) Orthodox, because of their historical connection with the Eastern
  Roman (Byzantine) Empire.

They are the "same type" of church in that they share a theology, but they tend to be ethnically tied - if you go into a Greek Orthodox Church in Texas, you'll still need to speak you some Greek. They don't have a pope, but the group of all their bishops are considered to be the ruling body of the church.

The Oriental Orthodox Church split off earlier (451 AD) over the Council of Chalcedon.

  Despite the potentially confusing nomenclature (Oriental meaning
  Eastern), Oriental Orthodox churches are distinct from those that are
  collectively referred to as the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Oriental
  Orthodox communion comprises six groups: Coptic Orthodox, Ethiopian
  Orthodox, Eritrean Orthodox, Syriac Orthodox, Malankara Orthodox
  Syrian Church (India) and Armenian Apostolic churches.2 These six
  churches, while being in communion with one another, are
  hierarchically independent.

This is a pretty small group however; most Orthodox churches you'll see in the West tend to be of the Eastern Orthodox breed.

These churches are all the same faith in the sense that they recognize each other are Christian, but the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox branches are not in communion with each other (or anyone else, I believe) and consider other branches to be schismatic and more-or-less heretical.

There are a lot of churches with similar names and variants. Of course they are mostly synonyms, a trivial canvas of local denomination names and sub-denominations indicates you have to be quite specific. A commenter asked about "the Coptics;" there is a Coptic Catholic Church and a Coptic Orthodox Church, for example.


Can the King James Bible be extensively quoted in commercial books? I am writing a book about the New Testament and need to quote the Bible extensively. I know the KJV is in public domain and there shouldn't a problem in quoting it, but does that apply to a book that may be published and possibly sold on the open market?

You have dealt with this issue before, but the person who was writing their memoir didn't indicate if they were going public with it, and were creating a commercial product. Does the later use of KJV scripture change any aspect of the Public Domain law?

See below:

  Is the King James Version Bible in the Public Domain [duplicate]

  This question already has an answer here:

  What major translations of the Bible are in the Public Domain?  8
  answers

  I am writing a memoir and want to use some quotes from the King James
  Version Bible. Will this be considered Public Domain because of the
  age.

  Thank you

  Answer
   Yes, it will. Quote away, without fear of being attacked for not
  footnoting what you are quoting.

  In the Wikipedia article on the KJV, you'll find the following: "The
  Authorized Version [i.e., the KJV] is in the public domain in most of
  the world."

  In your memoirs, just make sure your quotation corresponds to the
  correct chapter and verse. A personal pet peeve of mine is the
  frequency with which I go to the reference provided in a writing and
  fail to find the verse that is quoted and cited.

  On the plus side, however, that kind of erratum makes me appreciate
  all the more the miraculous job performed by generations of faithful
  and meticulous scribes and transcribers who all did their part in
  providing us with the Bible we have today. PTL!

Any wisdom that you can provide will be greatly appreciated.

The King James Version of the Bible is public domain in most parts of the world. Being in the public domain means that you can do whatever you want with it, including quoting it in a commercial book as you will like. In fact, you can even copy the whole text of the KJV, print it out, and sell your own copy (although since anybody can get it for free, that's not likely to be a very lucrative business model.

However, the United Kingdom and the commonwealth countries have more restrictions. By royal prerogative, only the Queen's Printer, Cambridge University Press, and Oxford University Press are permitted to reproduce the KJV. Cambridge University Press gives permission to use up to 500 verses (with some additional caveats) for educational and liturgical use. Beyond that, they approve usage on a case-by-case basis and generally don't charge a fee.

So if you are publishing in the United Kingdom or a commonwealth country, you will need to make sure that your work follows the appropriate guidelines for citing the King James Version of the Bible. If you quote extensively from it, you will likely need to contact them directly for permission.

If you are publishing to any other country in the world, you have nothing to worry about because being in the public domain means there are no restrictions to how you choose to use the KJV text, including using it in your own commercial work.


Is the Hail Mary a prayer? The Hail Mary is very often called a 'prayer'.

Some Catholics like to distinguish between 'praying', which is only said to God, and 'asking' which is acceptable for the deceased saints.

So is the Hail Mary a prayer (even though it's offered to Mary) or something else? Answers from any perspective which uses the Hail Mary would be welcome.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (in particular paragraphs #2673 through #2682 which explore the words of the Hail Mary) it seems as if the Hail Mary is considered a prayer. Here are a few excerpts:

"Beginning with Mary's unique cooperation with the working of the Holy Spirit, the Churches developed their prayer to the holy Mother of God, centering it on the person of Christ manifested in his mysteries..."
"Holy Mary, Mother of God...by entrusting ourselves to her prayer, we abandon ourselves to the will of God together with her: "Thy will be done."

Additionally, the Catechism calls Mary herself "the perfect prayer" and says that "when we pray to her, we are adhering with her to the plan of the Father, who sends his Son to save all men."


How can a loving God make a deal with the devil? In the book of Job, as best as I can see, God ruined Job's life over a bet (Job 1:9-12, 2:4-6). People and livestock who weren't even involved died (Job 1:13-19). Moreover, God literally made this deal with the devil.

It seems that Job's life (and the lives of his children and livestock) is just a game or one big cosmic joke to God and Satan. We can explain Satan's behavior by saying he's evil. But God is supposed to be all-good and all-loving.

How do Christians reconcile God's bet with Satan with a God of love?

Important Note:
This question is not about the problem of evil. It has nothing to do with Job. It's about God's behavior in the book of Job, i.e. the bet with Satan. If your answer has anything to do with why the righteous suffer, you're probably answering the wrong question.

First a disclaimer –

Your question is another form of the renowned problem of evil. How can God be loving and kind in light of all the suffering that exists in the world?

It is easy to try to give over simplifying answers especially when I myself haven’t gone through the problems many other people have to face. I do not think I can fully answer your question, all I can offer is some speculative arguments.

End of disclaimer.

The problem of evil is not an easy one and as such one could not expect its answer to be simple (And not expect it to come from a simpleton like me). The problem has been dealt innumerable times by many Philosophers and Apologists.

Leibniz and Lewis come to mind. (I would recommend The Problem of Pain)
Nor is the problem essentially a new one. Even the prophets of God had the same confusion –

  Habakkuk 1:2 How long, LORD, must I call for help, but you do not
  listen? Or cry out to you, “Violence!” but you do not save? 3 Why do
  you make me look at injustice? Why do you tolerate wrongdoing?

I think the crux of your question is the premise that humans are innocent until they do something very terrible like murder.

  Innocent people and livestock died.

And it is this premise that I'll focus on –

We all think ourselves to be quite innocent. There are a few faults
here and there but there’s a good reason for those.

  Proverbs 16:2 All a man's ways seem innocent to him, but motives are
  weighed by the LORD.

All our goodness is accidental or circumstantial. I have never
stolen anything in my life. Though I'd like to believe it's all
because of my good nature it might be because I've never really
needed to. While we humans can only look on the external actions of a
person and make our judgement on that basis, God is not fooled by
appearances.

By the way of an analogy the user of a software system can only tell
if a program malfunctions by analyzing the output. On the other hand
a programmer can read the code and make an estimated guess if the
code will actually work. Badly written code executing in an ideal
environment may work. While a code of mathematical precision may
break under extensive regression test. In these cases a programmer
is (and as God is in our case) - not fooled.

It is in this context that He says -

  Matthew 23:26 I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are
  entering the kingdom of God ahead of you.

And -

  Matthew 23:6 " ... first clean the inside of the cup"

Our sense of goodness is in out of touch with reality. Have you ever
watched a documentary on Khmer rouge or the war crimes in World War
II?

  Innocence is the last characteristic one could attribute to the human
  race. - Monika Michael

And -

  1 John 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and
  his word is not in us.

Also -

  The more I know of men, the more I respect dogs. (Author Monika can't
  remember)

And also -

  Jeremiah 17:9 The human heart is the most deceitful of all things, and
  desperately wicked. Who really knows how bad it is?

God does not owe His salvation or His favor to anyone. Nor does He
need to explain Himself to anyone.

  Psalm 50:12 ... all the world is mine and everything in it.

  Matthew 20:15  I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have
  compassion on whom I have compassion.

Now directly onto your question. We don't know exactly what happened, we aren't given much information. There are two possibilities (in my mind) -

Perhaps Job's sons were wicked, not God fearing like their father. (Example,
David and Solomon, Eli the high priest and his wicked sons) And God
decided to use the situation and kill two birds with one stone. Bring
judgement on his sons and set a personal matter straight with Satan.

In the end all things even those not in approval to His immediate commands
will accomplish only His purpose.
Perhaps Job's sons were not wicked. They died in a dramatic fashion and so we ask the
question - what was their sin? Again we're judging based on
appearances. If someone dies quickly we think it's because of sin.
If someone dies by age we thinks its all right.

The fact is that we all have sinned and are going to die one day or
another. The timing of our death has nothing to do with it.  The
righteous may live few days and the wicked may flourish (I'm in my
full old testament rhythm today) but in the end each man will get
what he deserves.

The Apostle Peter was not rescued from the prison because he
was sinless but so that he might preach the gospel. When he had
finished his job he did have to die. Similarly maybe Job's sons were innocent as you say. But they did have to give up their souls to God one day. He took it early. Whether he takes it right now or 60 years later is His prerogative.

In the end all I can say is -

  Romans 9:20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God?

Perhaps Jobs sons were holy and righteous (like me) and they died,
well then -

  Philippians 1:23 I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far;


What official statements represent Christianity's position on the Gospel of Barnabas? The Gospel of Barnabas is a text that has turned up in the form of 16th century manuscripts in Italian and Spanish. The text claims to be the witness of Jesus' disciple Barnabas, however its content runs quite contrary to Christian doctrine in every major tradition that I know of.

Secular media, however, loves to trumpet its claims and it periodically makes the rounds in pop culture. Sometimes it is touted as an alternate rendition of the Biblical New Testament account (either to be considered the true one if you discount the NT or a bogus one if you trust it). While the media doesn't tend to cover this, most scholars recognize that it's teachings are hugely divergent from those of Christianity.

What Christian traditions have come down with official statements with direct bearing on this text either approving or rejecting it's claims? What secondary positions (creeds, confessions, etc) could be shown to directly address it? Have any Christian traditions ever given it's teaching any authority?

This is an English translation of the Decretum Gelasianum de Libris Recipendis et Non Recipiendts.  The Decretum Gelasianum was issued by Pope Gelasius [Pope of Rome 492-96].

One of the apocryphum mentioned is "the Gospel in the name of Barnabas".

Now, the document floating around in the present day is probably a 16th century writing, just based on content analysis.  However, a version that existed in the 5th century was rejected by the Roman Catholic church as apocryphum.


What is the Lutheran view on sovereign election? My understanding is that Lutherans have some doctrine of sovereign election/predestination, yet they also affirm unlimited atonement and that some do go on to shipwreck their faith. What are the mechanics of how these doctrines interplay in confessional Lutheran theology?

Lutherans believe that God elects to salvation, but not to damnation.  That is to say, we believe that our salvation is due to God's election on account of His grace and mercy for the sake of Christ (i.e. God chooses us because He is merciful, not because we've done something to earn it or because He sees that we will do something to merit salvation).  See, for example, Ephesians 2:1-10 and Romans 5:6-21.

By way of comparison, Calvinists would then typically go on to say that the logical corollary is that God therefore chooses who is damned; i.e. He "elects to damnation."  However, Lutherans say that this is not correct.  We believe that Christ died for the sins of all people (e.g. 1 John 2:2) and that God wants all people to be saved (e.g. 1 Timothy 2:4).

Lutherans also believe that it is God Himself who brings people to faith through the working of the Holy Spirit through the Gospel in its spoken, written, and sacramental forms (see, for example Romans 10:10-17 where Paul talks about faith coming from hearing through the "Word of Christ").  So, even our very faith is a work of God (a point also touched on in the earlier example from Ephesians 2:8-9).

To the question then, of why some people are not saved, even though Christ died for their sins and even though God wants them to be saved, Lutherans would answer, "We don't know."  It's a paradox that we don't believe we can resolve (Paul seems to touch on this also in Romans 9).

We often make a distinction between the "revealed God" and the "hidden God" that's useful in considering this paradox.  The "revealed God" is the aspect of God that He reveals to us in the Scriptures; i.e. He created all things, He came in the flesh to redeem all things, Christ died for all people, He wants all people to be saved.  The "hidden God" is the aspect of God that He does not reveal to us; it's His hidden will that He does not show us.  Lutherans believe that questions like why some people are saved and others are not and why good people sometimes suffer and bad people sometimes prosper fall into this category of the "hidden God."  We can't know or discover the answers through our own efforts, because God hasn't told us the answers.  It's similar to how young children only know their father based on what he has told them about himself.

In the end, then, we lean back on what God has clearly revealed to us and go from there.  So, we can confidently tell people that Christ died for their sins and that the Gospel is for them, because this is what God tells us in the Scriptures.  Then, we trust in God to bring them to faith in the Gospel for their salvation.  Maybe another way of saying it is that we do all we can in spreading the Gospel, and trust in God to work through this proclamation to save people by bringing them to faith.

We also believe that people can fall from faith (e.g. Luke 8:13, Hebrews 6:1-8).  Typically, we believe this happens when people persist in some sort of unrepentant sin after coming to faith.  That is, they fight against the working of the Holy Spirit in them, until they ultimately destroy their faith.  For this reason, Lutherans talk about a daily "living out of our baptism" by dying and rising each day through repentance and forgiveness.  Our entire lives are ones of confession and absolution, whereby we confess our sins (e.g. in prayer or to the pastor) and receive absolution (e.g. in the Gospel and Sacraments, or the pronouncement from the pastor).  Note, though, that God's forgiveness is already there for us before we confess and before we repent; confession and repentance, in essence, open our eyes to the fact that we need God's forgiveness and mercy.


Being flogged in the synagogues before the second coming? Matthew 10:17 speaks thus:

“Be on your guard; you will be handed over to the local councils and be flogged in the synagogues.”

The context is Jesus’ commission to his disciples to go and proclaim the message. He tells them to stand fast even unto death and they will be saved, and those who do right by them will get their reward. Jesus claims that the Son of Man will come before they have even finished going around all the towns in the area.

Luke 21:12 seems to be similar. But here is where it gets strange for me. The same kind of context, but here the Son of Man is coming on the clouds of glory! There are signs and wonders and this is the second coming.

Here’s what’s strange to me. The one in Matthew is obviously talking about the situation at the time, when Christians were a small sect and Jews had power over them. But Luke is talking about something that seems to be at least 2000 years later. And there’s no way Christians are being beaten by Jews in synagogues. So how can it ever come true? What is it referring to, put all together? If the two accounts are of the same thing and Jesus would be coming in the Second Coming before the guys even finished going around all the towns then I guess it was expected the world would end in the lifetime of the listeners?

It really does depend on your eschatological view. Futurists/Dispensationalist want to place passages like Luke 21:12 in the future before the second coming of Christ. However, Partial Preterists/Covenantalists as well as some Amillennialists (like myself) see passages Luke 21, Matthew 24 and Mark 13 as Jesus' prophecy of the destruction of the temple in 70 AD only (much qualification needed). It should also be noted that not all Amillennialists thinks this way. Many of them do see a typological fulfillment in 70 AD whereas the full and final fulfillment will be realized before the second coming of Christ in the future. Either way, a good book to read on the Partial Preterist/Amillennialist position is Sam Storms book called 'Kingdom Come'.

As far as the beating in synagogues thing, the apostles were actually beaten a few times in the book of Acts at 5:40 and 16:22-23 which in some sense can be seen as a regulatory fulfillment of Matthew 10:17 as well as Luke 21:12 even though they weren't always exactly in the synagogues themselves which is a detail I don't think has to be perfectly fulfilled. Jesus' point was that they were going to be persecuted for their devotion to Christ which is exactly what happen to them. I hope that helps. :)


How far advanced was the Virgin Mary's Pregnancy when she returned to Nazareth? According to the gospel of St. Luke, the Virgin Mary after receiving the good news from the angel Gabriel, visited her cousin Elizabeth (a week's travel away) and stayed with her for three months.
The question is:

Did Mary visit Elizabeth immediately or a few days after the angelic visitation?
Did Mary witness the birth of St. John the Baptist ?
If Mary immediately went to see Elizabeth and only stayed three months, would her pregnancy have been obvious to others when she returned to Nazareth?
How far advanced was Mary's pregnancy when she returned home from visiting Elizabeth?

A Catholic perception or another denomination maybe acceptable to answer too.

Luke 1:56 says that she stayed with Elizabeth for 3 months. We know for certain, then, that Mary was at least 3 months pregnant with Jesus. She went to Elizabeth when Elizabeth was in her 6th month of pregnancy (Luke 1:36; 1:39). The NIV says that Mary left immediately and stayed for 3 months. The trip from Nazareth to the town that Elizabeth lived in was a week apart. So we know that, unless she conceived at another time other when the angel talked to her, she was in her 3rd and 1/2 month when she left.

The NIV (New International Version) tells us that at that time Mary got ready and hurried to Elizabeth (Luke 1:39), suggesting she left ASAP.
It is very likely, although irrelevant, that Mary was able to witness the birth of John the Baptist. (She may have been not too excited about giving birth to Jesus) She went to Elizabeth when Elizabeth was at least 6 months along in her pregnancy (Luke 1:36). Mary stayed 3 months (Luke 1:56), so she most likely saw the birth of John the Baptist.
If she left immediately to Elizabeth, when she came back it is unknown to me if it would have been obvious. The Bible gives no indication that she was obviously pregnant.
Mary was at least 3 1/2 months along (Luke 1:56). You said in your question that the trip was about a week away; so she traveled for a week, stayed for 3 months and traveled home for another week. This would actually total to 3 1/2 months. Therefore Mary had to have been at least 3 1/2 months along in her pregnancy by the time she returned to Nazareth.


How do Young Earth Creationists account for civilisations with histories going back five thousand years or more? How do Young Earth Creationists account for the fact that some cultures have been continuously measuring the years for almost five millenia?

Lining up dates from ancient documents and inscriptions is not an easy thing to do. You don't find ancient records that say, "Our nation was established on June 12, 3462 BC", for the simple reason that our modern calendar did not exist back then. So even when an ancient source gives a date, it is in the calendar they used at the time, and historians have to try to match that up to modern calendars. Scholars debate these sort of things endlessly.

So the reality is not that ancient Egyptian or Hittite or Sumerian or whatever chronologies contradict the Bible chronology. Rather, it is that SOME INTERPRETATIONS of ancient Egyptian, etc chronologies contradict SOME INTERPRETATIONS of the Bible chronology. Put that way, it's hardly an astounding fact. Reporters trying to describe current events often have difficulty fitting together all the different accounts of an event into a single coherent narrative.

When people talk about taking Bible dates literally, they usually eventually refer to James Ussher, who used the genealogies and other information in the Bible to estimate the date of creation at about 4004 BC. Modern young-earth creation theorists generally accept that as at least a ballpark, though many would stretch it out a few thousand years. Some secular historians claim to trace historical records back to circa 6000 BC. So yes, there's a discrepancy to be resolved, but it's on the same order of magnitude. No one claims to be able to trace historical records back a million years or a billion years. The histories of cultures around the world are at least generally consistent with young-earth Biblical chronology. There's no way you could use them as evidence for an evolutionary time-scale.


What is the significance of Luke 22:44 where Christ's sweat was as great drops of blood in the garden of Gethsemane while he prayed? Luke 22:44 talks about Jesus Christ's experience while he was in the Garden of Gethsemane. During a time when an angel visits him to strengthen him he begins to sweat blood.  I would like to understand better the significance of this verse:

44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly:
   and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.

Did he literally bleed through his pores as could be interpreted from this verse?
What would cause him to sweat blood during a prayer to his Father?
What is the spiritual meaning behind this sweat of blood that came from his body in the Garden of Gethsemane?
Was he feeling pain that required an angel to strengthen him in order to bear what he was feeling?

Did he literally bleed through his pores as could be interpreted from this verse?

Yes. This condition is called Hematidrosis.

What would cause him to sweat blood during a prayer to his Father?

Hematidrosis may occur when a person is suffering extreme levels of stress; for example, facing his or her own death.

What is the spiritual meaning behind this sweat of blood that came from his body in the Garden of Gethsemane?

The drops of blood that Jesus sweat in the Garden of Gethsemane surely fulfilled "the anguish of His soul" that Isaiah spoke of; that is, Jesus's passion was not merely  physical but also spiritual.
His anguish clearly demonstrated he was human and that his sufferings were real. Two early heresies, Docetism and Sabellianism, denied both.

Was he feeling pain that required an angel to strengthen him in order to bear what he was feeling?

I would not call it pain, I would say intense spiritual agony. Being the Son of God, he knew in detail everything that was about to happen to him. He knew that he was facing physically one of the most horrible forms of capital punishment in history. Since his body was human, he would feel everything at least as intensely as we would.


Why is the name Jehovah not used more in the Book of Mormon? In Jewish history around 150 years before Christ came Jews began taking the name Jehovah out of the Bible. In the book of Mormon, the record of the bible is on brass plates claimed from Laban 600 BC. Why is it that in the 600 BC version the name Jehovah only appears once when quoting the Bible, when in the old testament manuscripts it appears over 7,000 times? My question is relating mainly to when books of the old testament are quoted in the Book of Mormon. Mostly in 2 Nephi.

It's pretty simple. The Book of Mormon translation follows in the KJV tradition, which in turn follows in the Jewish tradition.
(1) Out of reverence, Jews never pronounced יהוה when reading scripture.

The original pronunciation of this name has possibly been lost, as the Jews, in reading, never mentioned it but substituted one of the other names of God, usually Adonai.
"Jehovah", Bible Dictionary

(Thus "Jehovah" is actually just a modern day guess at a transliteration of the Hebrew יהוה.)
(2) The King James Version did something similar. It was partly out of a similar tradition of reverence, and partly because they could't really write Jhvh, and they didn't want to guess at a transliteration. So in the KJV, you will find יהוה rendered as LORD or GOD.

For the LORD GOD will help me; therefore shall I not be confounded: therefore have I set my face like a flint, and I know that I shall not be ashamed.
Isaiah 50:7

(3) The Book of Mormon (or, more properly, the English translation of the Book of Mormon) did the same thing: יהוה  becomes Lord or God.

For the Lord God will help me, therefore shall I not be confounded. Therefore have I set my face like a flint, and I know that I shall not be ashamed.
2 Nephi 7:7

In fact, almost anytime Lord appears in the KJV Bible (or in the Book of Mormon), it is a translation for יהוה.

In the LDS faith, there's no need to avoid pronouncing or writing Jehovah (or Jahveh, Yahveh, etc.). Jehovah is regularly used, particularly when referring to Jesus before his mortal birth. The reason that it appears this way in scripture is just a custom with an interesting history.


How do Catholics respond to the claims that the cross has pagan origins? According to An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (London, 1962), W. E. Vine, p. 256.  :

  The shape of the [two-beamed cross] had its origin in ancient Chaldea, and was used as the symbol of the god Tammuz (being in the shape of the mystic Tau, the initial of his name) in that country and in adjacent lands, including Egypt. By the middle of the 3rd cent. A.D. the churches had either departed from, or had travestied, certain doctrines of the Christian faith. In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system pagans were received into the churches apart from regeneration by faith, and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols. Hence the Tau or T, in its most frequent form, with the cross-piece lowered, was adopted to stand for the cross of Christ.”

There are many other references that agree that prior to 3rd or 4th century only non Christian groups ever used the symbol of the cross in their worship. There is also the matter of whether or not Jesus was put to death on a cross or a single upright stake as the Ancient Greek words stauros indicates.

Thus I am asking: How does the Catholic Church explain the cross becoming acceptable to use and venerate as a symbol of Christianity?

This is a non-starter because it rests upon multiple logical fallacies, meaning it's a non-argument for anything other than one's inability or unwillingness to be logical.

Namely, it commits the Genetic Fallacy: 'x has origins in somone or something evil, therefore, x must be bad in and of itself' (e.g. 'circumcision is evil because pagans invented circumcision').

It also commits the Association Fallacy (Guilt By Association): 'x was done or caused by evil [person] y, and therefore all instances of x implies the evil [of person] y' (e.g. 'pagans used crosses on which to torture people, therefore anything plus sign or cross shaped is evil' or 'all guns are evil because some people shoot humans with them.')

There are probably a few more, but one is sufficient, and you get the point.

But more simply, the crucifying Him on a cross was an evil done to Christ. Just as killing Him was. But the evil done to Him was to our benefit (Gal 3:13; 2 Cor 5:21 etc.).

1 Cor 1:23-24: the cross is a stumbling block and an apparent defeat only to those who are perishing (2 Cor 4:3), but to us it is our salvation.

Gen 50:20: the Romans and Jews putting Christ to death was an evil objectively, but subjectively, we recieve benefit because of it.

Also, God can sanctify that which is pagan (see the above logical fallacies upon which some rest to object to this fact) for His own purpose. An example is circumcision. God doesn't care what other's signified or meant by, since why would He? Only He matters. Romans used the cross to torture criminals. So what? God used the cross to present His salvation to the world, and by definition becomes something holy, in spite of itself.


Can the laity use exorcised salt? If so, what are the rules for the proper use, handling, and storage of exorcised salt? In Catholic tradition, can a Catholic acquire exorcised salt from a priest? If yes, what are the rules of such salt (acquiring, use, handling, storage) that the laity have to comply with?

I have so far read here telling the laity that they can sprinkle salt all over their property, their neighborhood, in their cooking, etc. with an accompanying prayer, and sometimes medallions, to send a clear message to the demons that they are not welcome in that particular place. One believer tapes some of the grains of the salt into fence posts, etc. to keep it in place.

Are the faithful are allowed to use the salt in such manners?

Very much appreciated!

The traditional (pre-Vatican II) blessing for holy water in the Rituale Romanum (Roman Ritual) includes exorcisms of salt and water:

1. On Sundays, or whenever this blessing takes place, salt and fresh water are prepared in the church or in the sacristy. The priest, vested in surplice and purple stole, says:
P: Our help is in the name of the Lord.
All: Who made heaven and earth.
2. The exorcism of salt follows:
God's creature, salt, I cast out the demon from you by the living ✠ God, by the true ✠ God, by the holy ✠ God, by God who ordered you to be thrown into the water- spring by Eliseus to heal it of its barrenness. May you be a purified salt, a means of health for those who believe, a medicine for body and soul for all who make use of you. May all evil fancies of the foul fiend, his malice and cunning, be driven afar from the place where you are sprinkled. And let every unclean spirit be repulsed by Him who is coming to judge both the living and the dead and the world by fire.
All: Amen.
Let us pray.
Almighty everlasting God, we humbly appeal to your mercy and goodness to graciously bless ✠ this creature, salt, which you have given for mankind's use. May all who use it find in it a remedy for body and mind. And may everything that it touches or sprinkles be freed from uncleanness and any influence of the evil spirit; through Christ our Lord.
All: Amen.
Exorcism of the water:
God's creature, water, I cast out the demon from you in the name of God ✠ the Father almighty, in the name of Jesus ✠ Christ, His Son, our Lord, and in the power of the Holy ✠ Spirit. May you be a purified water, empowered to drive afar all power of the enemy, in fact, to root out and banish the enemy himself, along with his fallen angels. We ask this through the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is coming to judge both the living and the dead and the world by fire.
All: Amen.
Let us pray.
O God, who for man's welfare established the most wonderful mysteries in the substance of water, hearken to our prayer, and pour forth your blessing ✠ on this element now being prepared with various purifying rites. May this creature of yours, when used in your mysteries and endowed with your grace, serve to cast out demons and to banish disease. May everything that this water sprinkles in the homes and gatherings of the faithful be delivered from all that is unclean and hurtful; let no breath of contagion hover there, no taint of corruption; let all the wiles of the lurking enemy come to nothing. By the sprinkling of this water may everything opposed to the safety and peace of the occupants of these homes be banished, so that in calling on your holy name they may know the well-being they desire, and be protected from every peril; through Christ our Lord.
All: Amen.
3. Now the priest pours the salt into the water in the form of a cross, saying:
May this salt and water be mixed together; in the name of the Father, and of the Son, ✠ and of the Holy Spirit.
All: Amen.
P: The Lord be with you.
All: May He also be with you.
Let us pray.
God, source of irresistible might and king of an invincible realm, the ever-glorious conqueror; who restrain the force of the adversary, silencing the uproar of his rage, and valiantly subduing his wickedness; in awe and humility we beg you, Lord, to regard with favor this creature thing of salt and water, to let the light of your kindness shine upon it, and to hallow it with the dew of your mercy; so that wherever it is sprinkled and your holy name is invoked, every assault of the unclean spirit may be baffled, and all dread of the serpent's venom be cast out. To us who entreat your mercy grant that the Holy Spirit may be with us wherever we may be; through Christ our Lord.
All: Amen.

This rubric answers your question:

Christ's faithful are permitted to take holy water home with them to sprinkle the sick, their homes, fields, vineyards, and the like. It is recommended too that they put it in fonts in the various rooms, so that they may use it to bless themselves daily and frequently.

Since holy water contains exorcised blessed salt, the faithful are permitted to do the same with blessed salt.
However, salt blessed for the purpose of baptism (baptismal salt) is not to be given to the faithful, according to this rubric from the baptism ritual:

… Salt thus blessed [for the exclusive use in a baptism rite] should not be given to anybody, nor even returned to anybody who may have brought it for the blessing, but it should be saved exclusively for baptism or thrown into the sacrarium.


What is the Lutheran doctrine of consubstantiation and how does it differ from transubstantiation and a more general protestant sacramental view? In transubstantiation, the bread and wine are said to become the literal body and blood of Jesus. Consubstantiation appears to affirm that "this is my body" does apply to the bread and wine, but not in Aristotelian categories of substance, but in some mysterious, but still actual sense.

A more general protestant sacramental view might say for example, "Jesus really actually gives us the gift of his body and blood in eating the bread and drinking the wine but we need not think that something has happened to change the bread and wine or that it is appropriate to worship or adore Jesus in or as the bread and wine. Rather, these are gifts to build up the people of God."

Lutheran consubstantiation seems to straddle transubstantiation and general sacramental protestantism in a way that makes it difficult to tell where the actual distinctions are.

So did I get the Lutheran view right? What are the real distinctions here and why do they matter?

Consubstantiation (also called impanation) says that, after consecration, bread remains and Christ becomes present within, among, or "along-side" the bread. Transubstantiation says no bread remains after consecration; the substance of bread no longer exists, having been replaced by the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ.

"Consubstantiation" from Fr. Hardon's dictionary:

  The belief, contrary to Catholic doctrine, that in the Eucharist the body and blood of Christ coexist with the bread and wine after the Consecration of the Mass. John Wyclif (1324-84) and Martin Luther (1483-1546) professed consubstantiation because they denied transubstantiation.


Why does the NWT capitalize "YOU" in many verses? Throughout many passages in the NWT (Jehovah's Witness specific New World Translation), all instances of the pronoun "you" are written in all capitals. Here is an example from Acts 2:38:

Peter [said] to them: “Repent, and let each one of YOU be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for forgiveness of YOUR sins, and YOU will receive the free gift of the holy spirit.

What is the reasoning behind this capitalization? I am familiar with the practice of capitalizing He/Him and similar pronouns when referring to God or Christ, but this appears to be quite different and I have no idea what the rational is.

The capitalized YOU is used to disambiguate singular vs. plural usage. While unclear in English, the difference between singular and plural usage is clear in the original Greek sources of these texts.

  It also makes a distinction between the singular and plural in the 2nd person personal pronoun: "you" is singular, and "YOU" is plural. In English, the word "you" is both singular and plural; in Greek, however, there is a clear distinction. The NWT has used this method to try and preserve this distinction. -- THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION; A Critical Analysis by Al Maxey


Is there any theological reason for not drinking the communion wine? So, when serving communion, I notice that there is a significant number of people who will eat the bread, but not drink the wine. (Note, I'm not talking intinction here - rather they eat the bread, then get up before the chalice is offered.)

Is there any theology behind this, or is it just a general "ick" factor at potentially drinking out of the same cup?

There is, as far as I know, no theological reason for not partaking of the wine. However there are a number of practical ones, more than just 'ick':

If you are sick and do not wish to infect others, and communion is by common cup. This can normally be avoided by intinction, but if intinction is not practiced then some people will avoid the wine.
If you are an alcoholic, or are sworn to total abstinence, and alcoholic wine is being served


What scriptural support do Latter-day Saints find for their moral agency doctrine? My understanding is Mormons hold to something similar to libertarian free will, the belief that a person’s choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God.

Since I don’t understand the position very well, perhaps a brief explanation of the view would be helpful to me, but primarily this question is concerned with what case can be made for the LDS view from Scripture (whether the Bible or other LDS Scriptures).

The LDS church does not teach predestination.

  To Latter-day Saints, the idea of predestination is unscriptural. Not only does it deny what Paul and other prophets taught about agency, but it also limits God’s love to only a select few. Elder Joseph Fielding Smith stated emphatically that “no person is ever predestined to salvation or damnation. Every person has free agency.” Similarly, the Book of Mormon prophet Jacob taught that “one being is as precious in [God’s] sight as the other.” (Jacob 2:21.)

The LDS church teaches about foreordination.

  Foreordination is thus different from predestination. There is no divine compulsion to ensure that a person who is foreordained to a particular calling will fulfill his or her tasks.

So why does the church teach foreordination and not predestination.  Predestination removes from us responsibility and agency.  If a person is predestined to become a minister or sorts, nothing will stop that even if they blatantly disobey God's commands.  One could be foreordained to be a minister and live in a way that is not condusive to that calling and never become a minister.  Agency is central to the doctrine of God.

  Agency is the ability and privilege God gives us to choose and to act for ourselves. Agency is essential in the plan of salvation. Without agency, we would not be able to learn or progress or follow the Savior. With it, we are “free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil” ( 2 Nephi 2:27).

If you read the last bullet point under sources, that will give you a solid understanding of what The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe concerning predestination and foreordination.

Sources

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1990/12/i-have-a-question?lang=eng
https://www.lds.org/topics/agency?lang=eng
https://www.lds.org/topics/agency/what-the-church-teaches?lang=eng
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/agency-essential-to-the-plan-of-life?lang=eng&_r=1
https://www.lds.org/ensign/1990/12/i-have-a-question?lang=eng


Does Jesus have two kingdoms? Do the two verses below signify that there are two kingdoms of Jesus Christ? If so, what are differences?
The kingdom of heaven

Matthew 16:19 (NKJV)
19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed[a] in heaven.”
Footnotes:
Matthew 16:19 Or will have been bound . . . will have been loosed

The kingdom of David

Isaiah 22 (NKJV)
The Judgement on Shebna
22 The key of the house of David
I will lay on his shoulder;
So he shall open, and no one shall shut;
And he shall shut, and no one shall open.
23 I will fasten him as a peg in a secure place,
And he will become a glorious throne to his father’s house.

Short answer: no. He does not have two kingdoms currently.

John 18:36

"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." (KJV)

Jesus' kingdom is, for right now, not on earth. His kingdom resides in the heavenly realms and in the hearts of believers. You cannot grab or feel His kingdom right now.

However, there is coming a time after Satan is cast into the lake of fire that Jesus will have a graspable kingdom.

Rev 21:10

"And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God" (KJV)

The Bible goes on after this verse to describe the city with the author's sight, such as sparkling, and the author goes on to give dimensions. This is clearly a kingdom able to be seen and felt. A graspable kingdom.

So the long answer is: Jesus has two different kingdoms, but only one right now.


Who was St. Joseph's Father? The New Testament seems to give two answers Matthew 1:16 (NASB)

  16 Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah.

Luke 3:23 (ESV)

  23 Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,

The problem here is that Matthew names Jacob Jesus's Grandfather and Luke names Heli. What is going one here? A mistake? A misunderstanding of Jewish genealogies?

The books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John can be seen to present Christ as King, Servant, Man, and God (in that order). See E.W. Bullinger's wonderful book Number in Scriptures for more on this topic (the chapter on the number seven).

As Bullinger puts it, a king must have a genealogy, and a man should have one. You'll notice that Matthew's genealogy starts with Abraham and goes down to Joseph, while Luke's genealogy proceeds up from Joseph to Adam and God. Matthews lineage describes the royal lineage through Solomon, while Luke's lineage describes the natural line through Nathan (Solomon's older brother, the third of four sons to David and Bathsheba - see I Chronicles 3:5). The first (Matthew's) is legal, the latter (Luke's) is natural.

Both lines eventually meet when Joseph, the son of Jacob (Matthew) marries Mary, the daughter of Heli (Luke). Luke 3:23 refers to Joseph as being the son of Heli out of the Jewish legal sanction and customary practice to refer to the son-in-law as son.

To summarize, Matthew's is the genealogy of Joseph, son of Jacob. Luke's is the genealogy of Mary, daughter of Heli.

Source: EW Bullinger's Number in Scriptures


Should Christians come out strongly against groups that do evil in Christ's name? I finally found a safe way to ask this question.  There is a Christian army called the Lords Army, that is doing evil in Africa, after twisting Christian teachings, yet this group is supported by some Americans, such as  Rush Limbaugh, and for those that want to read the transcript.

So, when a group is demonstrating very anti-Christian teachings while purporting to be Christian, I realize we can pray for them.  These people are evil, so how strongly should Christians not only try to stop these people, but then are we beholden to go into these regions to serve the people and try to show Christ's teachings, such as when he washed the feet of his apostles?

Other examples of people doing evil in Jesus' name would be subjective, but this group I hope is not.

There may be better or more applicable teachings, but this reminds me of Acts 4:32-5:11 wherein the Christians were living and sharing their things yet a couple was hording for themselves.

Well, it didn't turn out too well for those folks, so if the LRA is as bad as it's purported to be, it won't turn out well for them etheir.  There's no basis for accepting acts of Christians who have proven themselves anti-Christian.

But, is it up to our church leaders to denounce them?  I think so to some extent, and to some extent they do. But pastors are often more concerned with their flock than ones half a world away. It's really up to us all to bring about the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth as best we can.  Run for office, vote for good people, give money to good charities, raise good children, there's more you can do if your vocation allows for it, but that's all most of us can do.


Were any popes or patriarchs converts to Christianity? The Biblical Peter was an adult when Jesus began his ministry, and thus ranks among the earliest converts to Christianity.  Roman Catholics hold that Peter was also the first pope.  Are any subsequent popes known or suspected to have been converts?

More generally, among the historical popes and patriarchs of the apostolic sees, were any of them (other than the founding apostles themselves) believed to be converts?

According to Catholic tradition, rarely questioned, the Roman church was led by the apostle Peter, who appointed his successor as bishop of Rome, and that Rome had an unbroken series of bishops down to the present day. At first, the bishops of Rome were not known as 'popes', but even the earliest Roman bishops could now be referred to as popes. According to this  tradition, the earliest popes, at least during the first century,  must have been converts to Christianity.

Francis A. Sullivan SJ says, in From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church, page 100, there is general agreement among scholars that the structure of ministry in the church of Rome at this time would have had a group of presbyters sharing leadership, perhaps with a differentiation of roles among them, but with no one bishop in charge. He says (ibid page 15) the broad consensus among scholars, including most Catholic ones, is that only during the course of the second century did the threefold structure become generally the rule, with a bishop, assisted by presbyters, presiding over the church. The import of this is that the Church was well established before the first bishop of Rome was appointed or elected. We can no longer assume that history necessitated early popes being Christian converts as adults.

Nevertheless, it is known that at least some popes were pagan converts to Christianity.  Pope Symmachus (498-514) is known to have been born a pagan in Sardinia and baptised after his arrival in Rome.

Patriarchs became part of the Church hierarchy in the fourth century, with the the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE identifying the bishops of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem as Metropolitans with regional powers (provision was made later for Constantinople and Carthage). I doubt that any comprehensive list of all Patriarchs and of their former beliefs, if any, now exists.


Why did Jesus refer to Gentiles as dogs? The passage below raises two questions in my mind but I suspect they both have the same answer. My questions are:

Why did Jesus at first refuse to speak to the Canaanite woman? We know He had no problem crossing gender and racial barriers, as seen e.g. in The Woman at the Well (John 4:1-42).
Why did He refer to her (and presumably all Canaanites and probably all Gentiles) as "dogs"? I say that He was referring to all Gentiles because He contrasted helping her with Israel, when He said, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."

Matthew 15:21-28
Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession.”
Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”
He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”
The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.
He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their dogs.”
“Yes, Lord,” she said, “but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.”
Then Jesus answered, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

(This story is also related in Mark 7:24-30.)

Jesus is the king of metaphors. This reference was not meant as an insult.

To quote from Life Application Study Bible in reference to Matthew 15:24:

  Jesus' words do not contradict the truth that God's message is for all people. After all, when Jesus said these words, He was in Gentile territory on a mission to Gentile people. He ministered to Gentiles on many other occasions also. Jesus was simply telling the woman that Jews were to have the first opportunity to accept Him as the Messiah because God wanted them to present the message of salvation to the rest of the world. Jesus was not rejecting the Gentile woman. He may have wanted to test her faith, or He may have wanted to use the situation as another opportunity to teach that faith is available to all people.

Had she taken what He said as an insult, as it may sound to us today, her faith would have been damaged and her daughter would not have been healed. It is obvious that she understood His reference as nothing more than a metaphor. Much the same as we are referred to as sheep.


Was Tetzel robbed by a man who had preemptively bought an indulgence? Wikipedia recounts a story told by Martin Luther about Johann Tetzel. It goes a little something like this:

Tetzel was in Leipzig selling indulgences. After collecting a large sum of money, Tetzel was preparing to leave town for Rome. A nobleman approached him and asked if he could purchase an indulgence for a future sin. Tetzel sold him one. Outside of town, the nobleman beat and robbed Tetzel. He then told Tetzel this was the sin for which he bought the indulgence.

Although Wikipedia does not offer a source, it seems to come from Luther's Sämmtliche schriften, vol 15.

Did this incident occur? If not, did Luther invent it or learn it from somewhere else?

This is a tentative answer.

Volume 15 of  Johann Walch's Sämmtliche schriften has the story of Tetzel's robbery in section 97 on the numbered page 363.  The Go To page number seems not to work, but doing find on Tetzel brings up 12 items on page xi and a little further down 9 items on page ccxxx. Clicking where it says page ccxxx gets one to the place.

This tells the story, in German, but before it does it ascribes the story to Georgii Arnoldi in his Life of the Elector Maurice, duke of Saxony; and to the German economist and historian Seckendorf's History of Lutheranism.

It seems that Dr Walch did not ascribe the story directly to Luther at all. This suggests that Dr Walch was unaware of any record of Luther recounting the story himself, which suggests that there is no record of him doing so.

It may be possible that the inclusion by Dr Walch of this story in his book  led someone mistakenly to ascribe it to Luther.

The nobleman's name was Hans von Hake (1472 - 1541) and the robbery is said to have  occurred near Juterbog, between Leipzig and Berlin. The empty chest which contained the money Tetzel had collected, and which Herr Hans relieved him of,   can still be seen in the Protestant Church of St. Nicholas in Juterbog.

The auto-translation of the German Wikipedia page on Tetzel  has the following:

  The Nikolaikirche in Jüterbog also has a Tetzelkasten.  Hans von Hake (1472-1541) from Julebog handed over this ark after Tetzel had removed the box.  He had already purchased the release card from him and waved it as Tetzel threatened him with the torment of purgatory.  Theodor Fontane describes this story in the first volume of his " Wanders through the Mark Brandenburg ".

There is no mention here of the story being attributed to Luther, as there is on the English site.

The Brandenburg site for the Luther 2017 Jubilee has a section on

  Luther und der "Bad Boy" von Juterbug

which translates as Luther and the Bad Boy of Juterbug. An auto-translation of the last part of this says:

  For, according to legend, Knight Hans von Hake has bought from the monk an indulgence for a yet unrequited sin in the future - and then attacked Tetzel and robbed his wooden vault.

Here again there  is no attribution to Luther (even on a site dedicated to his Jubilee), and the story is described as a legend suggesting that part, at least, is poorly attested historically, which doesn't mean it didn't happen.

So a tentative conclusion is that Luther did not make it up, or even, as far as we know,  mention it. But whether or not it really happened may be uncertain.


What privileges and powers does the Prophet of the LDS Church have in his office as Seer? From what I know, the Prophet of the LDS Church holds the position of Seer, as Joseph Smith did.  If this is so, what specific privileges and powers come with that position?  Does this include the ability to translate ancient languages as it did for Joseph Smith?

The Book of Mormon talks about seership in Mosiah 8:13-18.

  13 Now Ammon said unto him: I can assuredly tell thee, O king, of a
  man that can translate the records; for he has wherewith that he can
  look, and translate all records that are of ancient date; and it is a
  gift from God. And the things are called interpreters, and no man can
  look in them except he be commanded, lest he should look for that he
  ought not and he should perish. And whosoever is commanded to look in
  them, the same is called seer.

  14 And behold, the king of the people who are in the land of
  Zarahemla is the man that is commanded to do these things, and who has
  this high gift from God.

  15 And the king said that a seer is greater than a prophet.

  16 And Ammon said that a seer is a revelator and a prophet also; and
  a gift which is greater can no man have, except he should possess the
  power of God, which no man can; yet a man may have great power given
  him from God.

  17 But a seer can know of things which are past, and also of things
  which are to come, and by them shall all things be revealed, or,
  rather, shall secret things be made manifest, and hidden things shall
  come to light, and things which are not known shall be made known by
  them, and also things shall be made known by them which otherwise
  could not be known.

  18 Thus God has provided a means that man, through faith, might work
  mighty miracles; therefore he becometh a great benefit to his fellow
  beings.

Further, President Benson, president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in 1980, spoke about 14 fundamentals to know about following a prophet. In that speech, he declared some of the authority and rights the prophet has while he maintains his office. I've summarized them here but they all demand further explanation and detail (because, I believe, many of these claims are very bold and forward) -- I recommend an in-depth study of the full article and its references.

  The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.
  The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.
  The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.
  The prophet will never lead the Church astray.
  The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any
  time.
  The prophet does not have to say ‘Thus saith the Lord’ to give us scripture.
  The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know
  The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.
  The prophet can receive revelation on any matter—temporal or spiritual.
  The prophet may be involved in civic matters.
  The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.
  The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.
  The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—the highest quorum in the Church.
  The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the first presidency—follow them and be blessed; reject them and suffer.


Are Catholics required to accept every article of Aquinas's «Summa Theologica»? Are all the articles of St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica to be accepted as the truth by every Catholic? Are there any criticisms of the Summa Theologica within the Catholic Church?

Authority of St. Thomas's Summa Theologica

Are all the articles of St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica to be accepted as the truth by every Catholic?

The Authority of St. Thomas Aquinas by Fr. Jacobus M. Ramírez, O.P., a famous Thomist, enumerated four "distinct categories of St. Thomas' doctrinal authority, namely, scientific and canonical, philosophical and theological" (p. 74). "II. Canonical Authority of the Doctor Communis of the Church" (p. 20-21) says:

This authority which may also be called dogmatic corresponds to the conformity of a theological or philosophical doctrine with divine revelation. It is measured by the approbation and commendation of the Teaching Authority of the Church whose function it is to judge such conformity. Thus the weight of this type of authority is wholly derived from the authority of the Church. As Thomas himself writes:

The teaching of Catholic Doctors has its authority from the Church; for that reason we must rely upon the authority of the Church more than upon the authority of an Augustine, a Jerome, or any other Doctor. [Summa Theologica II-II q. 10 a. 12. c.]

When the authority of the Church consistently and over along period approves and commends the doctrine of anyone for all the faithful, it makes that doctrine its own, and invests it with its own authority. The Church does not create the force and truth of that doctrine out of nothing but rather supposes its existence and recognizes it, authoritatively proposing it to be followed and imitated. The manner of such approbation is similar to that by which the canonization of one of the faithful by the Church does not create but supposes the sanctity of the person. The Church merely recognizes that sanctity, and authoritatively proposes it for veneration and imitation.

Primarily, the Church approves and commends theological doctrine which deals per se with divinely revealed truths. But secondarily, it can approve philosophical doctrine, which is properly concerned with truths of the natural order, insofar as that doctrine is in conformity with truths of the supernatural order. For this very reason Benedict XV called it "philosophy according to Christ." [Motu proprio, Non multo post, de Romana S. Thomae Academia, AAS 7 (1915), 6, Dec. 31, 1914.] And so the canonical doctrine of St. Thomas should be treated first in the field of theology and then in philosophy.

Regarding "the canonical doctrine of St. Thomas" "in the field of theology", Fr. Ramírez gives this example:

At the completion of the process of canonization, when more than 300 miracles performed by St. Thomas had been recounted, the Pontiff [Pope John XII, who canonized St. Thomas Aquinas] said:

Why should we seek more miracles? He has performed as many miracles as he wrote articles [in the Summa Theologica]. Truly this glorious Doctor, after the Apostles and the early Doctors, has greatly enlightened the Church. [P. Percin, Monumenta Conveiitus Tolosani Ord. Praed. cf. J. Berthier op. cit., 50.]

Also, St. Thomas's Summa Theologica was placed on the altar at the Council of Trent, and several of his teachings became, almost verbatim, defined dogma at that council.
cf. the Testamonies of the Popes here, the 24 Thomistic Theses, and this intro. to them, which quotes several Popes regarding the necessity of Thomism

Criticisms of the Summa Theologica

Are there any criticisms of the Summa Theologica within the Catholic Church?

Accusations of Denying the Immaculate Conception
Many have claimed that he wrote against the Immaculate Conception (cf. Summa Theologica III q. 27 "Of the Sanctification of the Blessed Virgin" and the editorial note at the top) and because of this, they claim his entire theology is flawed or outdated. For a defense of St. Thomas on this point, cf. Thomist Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.'s Reality: A Synthesis of Thomistic Thought ch. 37 Mariology", art. 3 "Mary's Sanctity," §1 "St. Thomas and the Immaculate Conception." (N.B.: The Immaculate Conception was not defined dogma in St. Thomas's time.)
See also this answer to the question "What is the basis for saying that Aquinas accepted the immaculate conception?"
Anti-Thomist Modernists and "New Theologians"
There are Modernist heretics like Henri Bouillard, S.J., who have criticized St. Thomas's theology as being outdated because, as the Thomist Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., describes it in the beginning of his Essence & Topicality of Thomism:

Certain souls [like Fr. Bouillard] today think that “a theology which is not current is a false theology” and that the theology of Saint Thomas in some of its important parts—e.g., when it conceives sanctifying or habitual Grace as a “form”—is only an application of the notions of Aristotelian physics, of the distinction between matter and form. And it is added: “Renouncing Aristotelian physics, modern thought has also deserted the notions and schemes that have value only for Aristotelian physics. Because theology continues to offer meaning to the spirit and can fertilize and progress with it, it is necessary that it renounces these notions.”

The theology of Saint Thomas, however, from this point of view, would no longer be current. And elsewhere it is also said: “A theology that is not current is therefore false.”

But why, then, would the Church recommend the doctrine of Saint Thomas to the point of insisting that professors of philosophy and theology teach this discipline “ad Angelici Doctoris rationem, doctrinam et principia, eaque sancte teneant”? [“according to the arguments, doctrine, and principles of the Angelic Doctor, to which they must religiously adhere”] ([1917] Codice Canonico, c. 1366). [cf. 1983 Code of Canon Law, can. 252 §3: “…students are to learn to penetrate more intimately the mysteries of salvation, especially with St. Thomas as a teacher.…”]

“The Christian truth, it is observed, is stuck in contingent notions and schemes which determine its rational structure. It is not possible to isolate it from them. It is not rendered independent from a system of notions but changing into another. History—nevertheless—does not lead to relativism. It permits the grasping, in the bosom of theological evolution, of an absolute. Not an absolute of description, but an absolute of affirmation. If the notions, methods, systems change; the affirmations that they contain remain, even if they are expressed in other categories.” [Bouillard’s condemned 1941 thesis Conversion et grâce chez S. Thomas d’Aquin]

Fr. Louis Bouyer, a Neo-Modernist, is another anti-Thomist.
The Nouvelle Théologie (New Theology) is an anti-Thomist movement which Pope Pius XII condemned in his encyclical Humani Generis (cf. "The structure of the encyclical Humani Generis" by Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., the encyclical's ghostwriter). Nouvelle Théologie—New Theology: Inheritor of Modernism, Precursor of Vatican II (2010) by Jürgen Mettepenningen is a good overview of battle waged between the Thomists and the New Theologians in ca. 1940s.
Accusations of Misogyny
For an excellent overview of St. Thomas's views of women, see "The Philosophy of Woman of St. Thomas Aquinas" by Kristin M. Popik.
Individual woman as "defective and misbegotten [deficiens et occasionatum]"
Some criticize St. Thomas for being misogynistic, e.g., when he says, in Summa Theologica I q. 92 a. 1 ("Whether the woman should have been made in the first production of things?") ad 1:

As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten [deficiens et occasionatum], for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence;

"Occasionatum" means "caused accidentally," i.e., caused besides the intention of nature.
however, he continues:

On the other hand, as regards human nature in general, woman is not misbegotten [occasionatum], but is included in nature's intention as directed to the work of generation [i.e., procreation].

In response to the objection (arg. 1) that God "should not have made woman" because she "would be an occasion of sin to man," St. Thomas replies (ad 3) that

If God had deprived the world of all those things which proved an occasion of sin, the universe would have been imperfect.

Thus, women perfect God's creation. From this alone it's clear that St. Thomas is a philogynist.
"in man [homine] the discretion of reason predominates"
In that same article (Summa Theologica I q. 92 a. 1), St. Thomas writes (arg. 2 & ad 2), in the context of Gn. 3:16: "Thou shalt be under the man's power":

…woman is naturally of less strength and dignity than man; "for the agent is always more honorable than the patient," as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 16). … [W]oman [femina] is naturally subject to man [viro], because in man [homine] the discretion of reason predominates. Nor is inequality among men [i.e., among humans] excluded by the state of innocence, as we shall prove (Question [96], Article [3]).

This passage is often misinterpreted as meaning that men are more rational than women; however, it's not so clear from the Latin, where St. Thomas uses two different words (vir = man/husband; homo = human, male or female) that in English are both translated as "man." A better translation would be:

[W]oman is naturally subject to man/husband [viro], because in mankind/humans [homine] the discretion of reason predominates.

In other words: It it is reasonable, to both males and females, that there be an inequality and thus order regarding the relation between males and females.
This is in accord with what St. Thomas says in the body ("I answer that…") of that article, where he discusses how in the plants and animals the distinction and inequality between the sexes is not as pronounced as it is in humans, and this is due to humans being rational creatures.
Accusations that St. Thomas's Argument for a Male-only Priesthood is Misogynistic
St. Thomas, in Summa Theologica suppl. q. 39 a. 1 ("Whether the female sex is an impediment to receiving Orders?") c., writes:

Certain things are required in the recipient of a sacrament as being requisite for the validity of the sacrament, and if such things be lacking, one can receive neither the sacrament nor the reality of the sacrament. Other things, however, are required, not for the validity of the sacrament, but for its lawfulness, as being congruous to the sacrament; and without these one receives the sacrament, but not the reality of the sacrament. Accordingly we must say that the male sex is required for receiving Orders not only in the second, but also in the first way. Wherefore even though a woman were made the object of all that is done in conferring Orders, she would not receive Orders, for since a sacrament is a sign, not only the thing, but the signification of the thing, is required in all sacramental actions; thus it was stated above (Question [32], Article [2]) that in Extreme Unction it is necessary to have a sick man, in order to signify the need of healing. Accordingly, since it is not possible in the female sex to signify eminence of degree, for a woman is in the state of subjection [cf. Gen. 3:16], it follows that she cannot receive the sacrament of Order.

The same criticisms of misogyny levied against St. Thomas here are also levied against St. Paul in, e.g., 1 Tim. 2:12, "I suffer not a woman to teach (in the Church), nor to use authority over the man," and Eph. 5, where St. Paul says that wives be subject to their husbands.
Other Instances Where St. Thomas Demonstrates He is not Misogynistic
Man and woman both created in God's image
Summa Theologica I q. 93 a. 4 ("Whether the image of God is found in every [hu]man?"):

Objection 1: It would seem that the image of God is not found in every man. For the Apostle says that "man is the image of God, but woman is the image [Vulg. glory] of man" (1 Cor. 11:7). Therefore, as woman is an individual of the human species, it is clear that every individual is not an image of God.

St. Thomas's reply:

Reply to Objection 1: The image of God, in its principal signification, namely the intellectual nature, is found both in man and in woman. Hence after the words, "To the image of God He created him," it is added, "Male and female He created them" (Gn. 1:27). Moreover it is said "them" in the plural, as Augustine (Gen. ad lit. iii, 22) remarks, lest it should be thought that both sexes were united in one individual. But in a secondary sense the image of God is found in man, and not in woman: for man is the beginning and end of woman; as God is the beginning and end of every creature. So when the Apostle had said that "man is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man," he adds his reason for saying this: "For man is not of woman, but woman of man; and man was not created for woman, but woman for man."

For more information on this, see Dr. Pia de Solenni's award-winning book *A hermeneutic of Aquinas's* Mens through a sexually differentiated epistemology: Towards an understanding of woman as imago Dei (2003); she is a critic of the "New Feminism."
Adam's sin alone, not Eve's, is the reason Original Sin passes onto his children.
Answering the question "Whether if Eve, and not Adam, had sinned, their children would have contracted original sin?" (Summa Theologica I-II q. 81 a. 5), St. Thomas writes (c.):

The solution of this question is made clear by what has been said. For it has been stated (a. 1) that original sin is transmitted by the first parent in so far as he is the mover in the begetting of his children: wherefore it has been said (a. 4) that if anyone were begotten materially only, of human flesh, they would not contract original sin. Now it is evident that in the opinion of philosophers, the active principle of generation is from the father, while the mother provides the matter. Therefore original sin, is contracted, not from the mother, but from the father: so that, accordingly, if Eve, and not Adam, had sinned, their children would not contract original sin: whereas, if Adam, and not Eve, had sinned, they would contract it.

Thus St. Thomas in no way blames women, like Adam did, for sin.
Why the Second Person of the Holy Trinity became a man and not a woman& St. Thomas's love for the Blessed Virgin
St. Thomas also addresses the question of why the Second Person of the Holy Trinity became a man and not a woman, in Summa Theologica III q. 31 a. 4 ("Whether the matter of Christ's body should have been taken from a woman?"):

Objection 1: It would seem that the matter of Christ's body should not have been taken from a woman. For the male sex is more noble [nobilior] than the female. But it was most suitable that Christ should assume that which is perfect in human nature. Therefore it seems that He should not have taken flesh from a woman but rather from man: just as Eve was formed from the rib of a man.

to which he replied:

Reply to Objection 1: The male sex is more noble [nobilior] than the female, and for this reason He took human nature in the male sex. But lest the female sex should be despised, it was fitting that He should take flesh of a woman. Hence Augustine says (De Agone Christ. xi): "Men, despise not yourselves: the Son of God became a man: despise not yourselves, women; the Son of God was born of a woman."

This is a very balanced teaching that is in accord with Holy Scripture; however, some anti-Thomists still think it is misogynistic.
Also, St. Thomas had a very good relationship with his five biological sisters, whom he taught from a young age and converted; he convinced one of them to become a religious.
St. Thomas's Views on Sex
Some have the misconception that St. Thomas is against sexual intercourse or even marriage; however, his teaching on sex is fully inline with Catholic teaching: sex that is for the procreation and education of children is good and even virtuous, sex passes on original sin, and it is sinful if sought for its pleasure alone (thus, he's against contraception):

I q. 98 a. 2 ("Whether in the state of innocence there would have been generation by coition?")

II-II q. 152 a. 4 ("Whether virginity is more excellent than marriage?")

suppl. q. 41 a. 3-4 ("Whether the marriage act is always sinful?" & "Whether the marriage act is meritorious?")

suppl. q. 49 a. 4-6 ("Whether the marriage act is excused by the aforesaid goods [fidelity, offspring, sacrament]?" & "Whether the marriage act can be excused without the marriage goods?" & "Whether it is a mortal sin for a man to have knowledge of his wife, with the intention not of a marriage good but merely of pleasure?")

St. Thomas on capital punishment
St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica II-II q. 11 a. 3 c., his answer to the question "Whether heretics ought to be tolerated?," shows that although heretics deserve death, the Church must show them mercy, and if they are stubborn, apply disciplinary means like excommunication, only handing them over to the State for capital punishment as a last resort.

With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.

However, he advocates mercy; he continues:

On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but "after the first and second admonition," as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death [as a last resort]. For Jerome commenting on Gal. 5:9, "A little leaven," says: "Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame."

Thus, St. Thomas does not indiscriminately advocate the death penalty for heretics.


In the New Testament who was the first person to recognize Jesus as the Messiah? Other than the Apostles, who was the first person in The New Testament to recognize Jesus as the Messiah?

Mary was informed by Gabriel that her Son would be Son of God, and be given the throne of David; while Joseph was made aware that He would save His people

The first to be made cognisant of the fact that Jesus was specifically Messiah, or Christ, were certain shepherds abiding in the fields outside Bethlehem, keeping watch over their flocks by night. The angel passed a remark to the effect that for them, in the City of David, was born a Saviour which is Christ (Messiah) the Lord. They went to see Him.

Then there were Simeon and Anna in the Temple.

This can be read in Matthew 1 and Luke 1 and 2.


Does the Bible require us to vote? Is there biblical support to suggest that it is our Christian duty to vote, or be involved in deciding our governments actions, or to choose a certain party for election, etc...? Is there biblical support to take the opposite stand (ie., not to vote; not to be a voice for any particular party?).

This is actually a question I asked at my church during the last election season.

I'll break this down into 2 parts

Voting:

I don't see any scriptural support for or against it. I reject the notion that it is a sin not to vote, as I haven't heard any sound scriptural evidence. I have heard people use "Pray for your leaders" (1 Tim 2:2) and "Submit to authority (Romans 13). But the reason we pray for our leaders is because "it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth".

As for submission to authority, until it is illegal to not vote, we are ok.

I see this as a matter of conscience. Romans 14:23b - "For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin." and Romans 14:5 - "Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind."

I think it is good to vote, it is a privilege, but there are times when your conscience will not let you vote for any of the choices, because each person represents something ungodly, that's ok too.

Party Affiliations:

When has any one political party totally held to exclusively biblical view points?

Isn't it hypocritical to vote in a person because they stand for your beliefs but they themselves cheat on their wife? How does this glorify God? We put people in office to uphold a moral standard, but they themselves don't care to keep it. I think this actually does more harm than good.

Romans 2, describes those who are in position to judge others, but they don't do what they demand of others. This is the same complaint Jesus had against the Pharisees. Are we really doing God a service by voting for people that cater to us, when they don't live like us? Rom 2:24 in the context of hypocrisy - "For, as it is written, “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you."

Referring to 1 Tim 2:2, we pray for them not so they can merely act Christian, but so they can be Christian. Can the unsaved be spiritually minded? Can they obey the Spirit(1 Cor 2:14)? They are still slaves to the flesh (Rom 6:15-23). The unsaved will always reject biblically guided laws, because it is foolishness to them.

The greatest way to spread Biblical views is still the great Commission, Matt 28:18-20. My main caution is... yeah let's vote, but let's make sure we don't replace evangelism with political activism.