What is a Consistory? In Raymundi Martini's Pugio Fidei, there is a section entitled, De Consistorio. While it seems he is using it in reference to Judaism, it also appears there is an equivalent in Catholicism. So, what is a Constitorio (Consistory) in Catholicism?

I looked this up on Google Books - Pugio fidei, page 14.

This section comes from the introduction written by Joseph de Voisin, the editor. It is one of a series of notes that touch on the major points of Jewish law, with the overall aim of equipping the reader (presumed to be a Catholic preacher wanting to convert Jewish people) with an understanding of Jewish tradition and of how the Catholic faith could be best described in relation to it.

The section De consistorio is about the Sanhedrin - principally the "Great Sanhedrin" of 71 judges, deriving from the council instituted by Moses (Numbers 11). It simply describes the nature and procedure of the original Sanhedrin, with reference to Jewish texts such as the Mishneh Torah. The authority of the Sanhedrin to expound and interpret the written and oral Law, and its succession from the days of Moses, is traced forward to the Catholic Church and the Pope in a later section (titled Traditiones legis Christi conformes sunt Antiquae, et legitimae Synagogae traditionibus, p144). The idea is that if you accept the role and succession of the Sanhedrin, then you cannot reject out of hand the similar magisterial authority and apostolic succession of the Church and her Pope. They interpret tradition and execute judgements in the same way, and the Old Testament priesthood prefigures that of the New.

The word "consistory" is used in Catholicism to mean "the ecclesiastical senate in which the Pope, presiding over the whole body of Cardinals, deliberates upon the affairs of the church" (OED), or "the assemblage of the Cardinals in council around the Pope" (letter of Innocent III quoted in the Catholic Encyclopedia), or a specific meeting of this body. The Church regularly holds consistories. The most familiar kind is for creating new cardinals - see for example the official information about one in November 2012. Other meetings may be held for private consultation. The earliest known document to relate this body to the assembly of Moses is a constitution of Pope John VIII (872-882), De jure cardinalium 1.

Meanwhile, in the main text by Raymond, he argues (part 2, chapter 4) that the coming of the Messiah is related to the meeting-place of the Sanhedrin, the "Chamber of Hewn Stone" (camera dolata). This is attributed to Jewish tradition regarding Genesis 49:10, "The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh comes". According to this idea, the exile of the Sanhedrin from that chamber (forty years prior to the destruction of the Second Temple) was linked to their inability to inflict capital punishment, and was a signifier of the coming Messiah. This matches the New Testament account, where Jesus had to be handed over to the Romans for crucifixion, about forty years before the Temple was destroyed.

Reference: Daggers of Faith: Thirteenth-Century Christian Missionizing and Jewish Reponse. Robert Chazan. University of California Press, 1989. Chapter 7 discusses the Pugio fidei and its Sanhedrin-Messiah connection.

1. "Quippe cum sicut nostram mansuetudinem Moysi, ita et vestram fraternitatem septuaginta seniorum, qui sub eodem causarum negotia dijudicabant, vicissitudinem gerere, certum habeamus." De jure cardinalium, in Migne's Patrologia Latina vol 126, John VIII Epistolae et decreta no. 346.


What is the theological basis both body and blood being present in both the eucharist host and the wine? (Catholic perspective) What is the theological basis for the conclusion that both species (body and blood) are fully present in both the transubstantiated wine and eucharist host?

This question is asked after learning that according to Catholic doctrine, either the consecrated host or the consecrated wine are by themselves perfectly sufficient for communion to be received.

Please, only answers from a Catholic theological perspective.

1 Corinthians 11:27-29 forms the theological basis for the conclusion that under each of the species (bread and wine), the body and blood of Christ is fully present after transubstantiation.

That verse states that 'if anyone eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord unworthily, he will be held to account for the Lord’s body and blood.'

Here St. Paul attaches the same guilt "of the body and the blood of the Lord" (copulative) to the unworthy "eating or drinking" (disjunctive).

In its article The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Catholic Encyclopedia points out that based on this verse Catholic Church believes that Jesus, in the species of bread alone, is fully present with his entire body, blood, soul and Divinity.


Do Biblical Unitarians believe that Christians can pray to Jesus and, if so, that he can answer a prayer in which he is asked about his divinity? I personally believe that there are biblical grounds for praying to Jesus (e.g. this and this), and, as far as I'm aware, many Christians believe the same. However, I'm currently in ignorance with regards to the Biblical Unitarian position on the subject.
I have four questions:

Do Biblical Unitarians believe that praying to Jesus is a legitimate, scriptural practice?
If the answer to the previous question is yes: do they also believe that Jesus can answer questions verbally (as in Acts 9:10-16 and 2 Cor 12:8-9)?
If the answer to the previous question is yes: do they believe then that if one prays to Jesus and asks him if he is God, he will respond with an unambiguous answer?
If the answer to the previous question is yes: has a Biblical Unitarian ever done this?

Biblical Unitarians have a wide range of views about a wide range of subjects - the term simply groups together people who believe God is the Father, not Jesus, and also hold that the Bible has authority in a strong sense (as opposed to other forms of Unitarianism which view the Bible as having authority in a weaker sense). Biblical Unitarians are a faction within Christianity, not a specific denomination.
Question 1. is highly relevant to the defining features of Biblical Unitarianism. If Jesus is not God, is it OK to pray to him?
The answer commonly seems to be yes, but there is debate.
The article Can We "Pray" to Jesus Christ? from BiblicalUnitarian.com addresses this question.

"There is a controversy among Christians who believe that Jesus is not
God but the Son of God, about whether or not we can pray to Jesus. The
only definitive place to go for an answer to that question is the Word
of God. [...] We believe that the Bible makes it clear that one can
pray to Jesus, but does not have to, and we will do our best to show
why that is."

This is perhaps similar to the debate between Protestants and Catholics about whether praying 'to' Saints is OK. Different people have different views.
In particular, Jesus seems to say we can ask Him for things. John 14:14

"You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it."

However, there is debate about whether this means addressing the prayer to Jesus, or addressing the prayer to God in Jesus' name, which Jesus unambiguously says we can do.
So the answer to 1. is 'yes' for at least some Biblical Unitarians. Even there, though, the emphasis is perhaps different from standard Trinitarian practise.

"Those who enthusiastically embrace the idea of praying to the Lord
Jesus must recognize that this practice ought not to be carried out to
the point of distracting one from the worship of the Father. We are
sure that the Lord Jesus would find it ironic indeed if he himself
were to become the principal object of Christian worship and
adoration, when his entire life and ministry was devoted to the
glorification of his Father."

For question 2., as the OP points out, there are instances in scripture where people seem to 'hear' Jesus. Since that's the case, I don't see why Biblical Unitarians would object to this idea.
Question 3. moves away from something specific to Biblical Unitarianism, presumably a prayer could be answered unambiguously.
Question 4. is an empirical question, but really two questions. Has someone had an experience like this? Were they having a veridical experience? I'm sure a Biblical Unitarian has done this, but I don't have a link to reports of this.


Can priests (or popes) administer sacraments in a liturgy other than their own? As I understand it, the Roman Catholic Church consists of a number of "particular churches" with separate liturgical traditions.  For example, the Ruthenian and Hungarian Greek Catholic Churches use the Byzantine liturgy, the Armenian Catholic Church uses the Armenian liturgy, the Coptic and Ethiopian Catholic Churches use the Alexandrian liturgy, and so on.

Furthermore, individual Catholics are always enrolled in a particular church upon baptism, and though they may by necessity receive sacraments according to a different ritual church, adults cannot permanently transfer themselves to another such church except by marriage or by special dispensation from the Apostolic See.  (See Can. 111–112.)

This brings me to my main question:  Is a priest permitted to administer sacraments in a liturgy other than that of his own particular church?  For example, could an Armenian Catholic priest celebrate a Byzantine mass?  If so, could he do this whenever he wishes, or does he require exigent circumstances or special dispensation?

As a follow-up, is membership in the Latin Church currently a prerequisite for serving as Bishop of Rome (i.e., as pope)?  If it is permitted to elect a non-Latin pope, would he be required to formally transfer to the Latin Church first and to perform all sacraments according to the Latin rite?

There are a number of related questions here.

The Bishop of Rome

The Bishop of Rome (i.e., the Pope), being the universal pastor of the Catholic Church, may celebrate in any rite he wishes at any moment.

There is not a specific norm in the Canon Law (abbreviated CIC)—the law for the Western church—or the Code of Canons of Oriental churches (abbreviated CCEO)—the law for the Eastern churches), however Canon Law says,

  The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power [potestate] in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely (CIC Can. 331; see also CCEO Can. 43).

The power (potestas) would include the license (permission) to celebrate the Sacraments in any rite.

There is also no restriction according to membership in a particular church as to who can be elected Pope: any bishop (indeed, in theory, any baptized, unmarried Catholic male) may be elected Pope. (If he is not a bishop, he would need to be ordained a bishop before he could become Pope.) CIC 332 says,

  The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by his acceptance of legitimate election together with episcopal consecration. Therefore, a person elected to the supreme pontificate who is marked with episcopal character obtains this power from the moment of acceptance. If the person elected lacks episcopal character, however, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately (CIC 332§1).

Note that the CCEO uses precisely the same language in Can. 44, and that neither one makes a distinction among members of a particular church.

(As a historical note, Cardinal Grégoire-Pierre XV Agagianian, the Patriarch of the Armenian Catholic Church, was a serious contender for the papacy in 1958. See the corresponding Wikipedia article.)

Bishops and priests

The situation for bishops (other than the Pope) and priests is a somewhat more restricted.

Priests and bishops (those who do not otherwise have restrictions placed on them) are, of course, always able to celebrate the Sacraments according to the rites of their own Church: the Roman Rite (and some of the smaller rites in a few places, such as the Ambrosian Rite in Milan, Italy) for Western priests, and the rite of whichever church they belong to, for Eastern priests.

In general concelebrating in the Mass or Divine Liturgy of a rite that is not one’s own is allowed, provided the liturgical norms of the given rite are being followed and there is no syncretism (CCEO 701). (Priests and bishops, however, are never to concelebrate with priests or bishops not in communion with the Catholic Church, even if they are validly ordained—e.g., the Eastern Orthodox. See CCEO 702.)

For other cases, the bishop in charge of a diocese can give permission for priests (or bishops) of a different rite to celebrate the Sacraments in the bishop’s own rite, within his own diocese. (Actually, the bishop could grant permission to celebrate in any rite, but there is seldom any need to grant it outside his own rite.)

Evidently, the Pope himself, or else the patriarch or major archbishop of an Eastern church, could also grant that permission.

It should be noted that, because the Latin Rite is so ubiquitous, and often less difficult to learn, it is generally easier for Eastern priests and bishops to be given permission to celebrate in the Latin Rite than vice versa.

See “Celebrating in an Eastern Rite” by Fr. Edward McNamara, L.C., and the followup article.

The faithful

Note that, although bishops and priests should in general follow the rites of their own particular church in all the Sacraments, the faithful may freely receive the sacraments from any Catholic priest or bishop.

Of course, the Sacraments of Initiation—especially Baptism and Confirmation/Chrismation—should generally be done in one’s own church, but one may receive them in a different rite if a pastoral necessity arises. (For example, it is common for Eastern-rite Catholics to live in an area with no Eastern parishes nearby. In such a case, they could request to have their children baptized and confirmed at the local Western-rite parish. They would, however, still belong to their respective church.)

(As a side note, the Eastern churches technically do not celebrate Masses. They call their celebrations of the Eucharist Divine Liturgies. The term “Mass” comes from the Latin words of dismissal Ita, missa est, that are said by the deacon or priest at the end of every Mass—save the Mass of the Lord’s Supper on Holy Thursday—that is attended by faithful.)


According to Catholicism, what does 'come upon thee' and 'overshadow thee' mean? When reading the verse regarding the miraculous birth of Jesus, there are certain terms used which I find very confusing.

How does the Catholic Church understand the bolded phrases in Luke 1:35

  And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

For context, Luke 1:30-36:

  And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found
  favour with God.

  And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,
  and shalt call his name Jesus.

  He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the
  Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

  And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his
  kingdom there shall be no end.

  Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a
  man?

  And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come
  upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee:
  therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be
  called the Son of God.

  And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in
  her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called
  barren.

If you say Jack will come up thee and over shadow thee it certainly brings certain thoughts to the mind, but how do Catholics understand this verse?

The phrases you point out indicate to the Catholic Church that the Holy Spirit was responsible for Jesus' conception:

  The Annunciation to Mary inaugurates "the fullness of time," the time of the fulfillment of God’s promises and preparations. Mary was invited to conceive him in whom the "whole fullness of deity" would dwell "bodily." The divine response to her question, "How can this be, since I know not man?" was given by the power of the Spirit: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you."

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 484)

Or again:

  The Spirit comes upon the Virgin Mary and "overshadows" her, so that she might conceive and give birth to Jesus.

(Catechism, paragraph 697)

Aquinas, in his Catena Aurea, quotes Gregory of Nyssa on this passage:

  O blessed is that womb which because of the overflowing purity of the Virgin Mary has drawn to itself the gift of life! For in others scarcely indeed shall a pure soul obtain the presence of the Holy Spirit, but in her the flesh is made the receptacle of the Spirit. ... Moreover, the power of the Highest shall overshadow you. Christ is the power of the most high King, who by the coming of the Holy Spirit is formed in the Virgin.

(emphasis added)

One sees the same thing in the Creeds:

  For us men and for our salvation
   he came down from heaven,
   and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary

  (Nicene Creed)

  and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
  who was conceived by the Holy Spirit

  (Apostles' Creed)

(emphasis added)


Can Papal Supremacy be relinquished? Is there anything in the Roman Catholic doctrine of papal supremacy that would prohibit the Pope from relinquishing his authority as head of the Church, and instead be "First among Equals?"

One of the fundamental differences separating the Roman Catholic Church from our fellow Christians in the Orthodox Church is the issue of papal supremacy. Rome believes that the Pope is the leader of the entire church, while the Orthodox believe that the Bishop of Rome is first among equals.

Given the pressure of secularism (both from outside and inside the Church), I believe that it is high time for us Christians who believe in the ancient faith to be united.

My questions is this: Given the Roman Catholic doctrine of papal supremacy, would it be possible, for the sake of Christian unity, for the Pope to relinquish that supremacy and become first among equals? Could he decide that it would be better for the universal church if he acted as "Prime Minister" of the faith, instead of "King of the faith?"

Papal primacy belongs to the very nature of the Church. No one can change how Christ Himself constituted His Church.

The First Vatican Council defined (Pastor Æternus ch. 2) the dogma that there will be a perpetual line of successors of St. Peter, the first pope, with "Primacy over the universal Church":

  If, then, any should deny…that blessed Peter should have a perpetual line of successors in the Primacy over the universal Church…: let him be anathema.Si quis ergo dixerit, non esse … ut beatus Petrus in primatu super universam Ecclesiam habeat perpetuos successores…: anathema sit.

(taken from my answer here)

Thus primacy is also perpetual.


Does God care about who we were? I got the following line from the movie Cowboys vs Alien.

  God doesn't care who you were. He only cares who you are.

Taking it with a pinch of salt, I'd like to ask the community if this statement can be asserted with biblical sources.

Key Verses
If any one is in Christ, he is a new Creation. Behold, the old things have passed away, the new is come.

2 Cor 5:17

As far as the east is from the west,
   so far has he removed our transgressions from us
- Psalm 103:12

Interpretation
So, the whole basis of the Gospel is grace - the unmerited favor of God towards sinners.  Grace is the complete forgiveness of sin, and a core tenet of the Gospel is that God's grace is abundant.  Put simply, there is no sin that God cannot forgive. (I know, somebody's going to link to the unforgivable sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit, but that's not where I'm going.)  In forgiving us, God's design is to make us a new creation.

Whether forgiveness means that the sin is forgotten or merely paid for is irrelevant to the original question - does God care about what we were? Not in the plainest sense, no.  Its water under the bridge, so to speak.

If God's design then is that we are transformed into a new creation, it would seem silly to assume that God would spend much time caring about where we begin. Put another way, God is sufficiently focused on what he will make of us that it seems silly for him to focus on what we were when we came to him.

Now, here's where I'm going to shift from God's motivation to what I suspect is the real thrust of the quote - If God is more concerned about what he would make of us, then once we come to him, any time we spend focused on what we were is distraction.  We feel guilt and shame, to be sure, but the awesome news that is the Good News is this - God has forgiven us.

I'm trying not to preach here, but the point is so basic I think it needs to be made: God has forgiven our sin. What we were is no longer relevant. (It may have consequences in the temporal - not arguing that, I'm just saying, God is making us new.)  The theological import of the admonition is 100% right on - God doesn't care where we came from, because he wants to remake us into his new creation anyway.

One last avenue of argument - Temporal Omnipresence

Most Christians (Process Theologians excepted) would, I believe, argue that God is not constrained by time. Given temporal omnipresence, then, God would simultaneously see the sinner and the new creation.  If God is outside of time, not part of the timestream if you will, then there is no past or present for God - all time happens at once.  If that is the case, then it isn't possibly to for God to care where you came from or where you are going, because its all present tense to him.  Being that God loves us, he must care for us as we are along.


What is an overview of Protestant explanations of the difference between dead faith and perfect faith in James 2? In James 2:17-22 (KJV) it reads:

  17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

  18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy
  faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

  19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils
  also believe, and tremble.

  20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

  21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered
  Isaac his son upon the altar?

  22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith
  made perfect?

From the Protestant perspective, what is the difference between "dead" faith (as described in verses 17 and 20) and "perfect" faith (as described in verse 22)?

For example, how do you tell them apart, and what are the outcomes of these different kinds of faith?

(Related)

Edit: Since different Protestants believe different things, an overview of the different viewpoints, and which denomination believe them.

The Protestant ‘Westminster Confession of Faith’ was drawn up in 1647-8 and a very considerable collection of Protestant denominations subscribe to it, so I will simply quote from this book for classes studying it. The relevant Articles are quoted, followed by the author’s further clarifications as to what the Articles mean.

  XIV. OF SAVING FAITH
  1.  The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in
  their hearts…
  2.  By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the word, for the authority of God himself speaking
  therein; and acteth differently upon that which each particular
  passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to the commands,
  trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for
  this life and that which is to come. But the principal acts of saving
  faith are, accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for
  justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the
  covenant of grace.
  3.  This faith is different in degrees, weak or strong; may be often and many ways assailed and weakened, but gets the victory...

The author of the Study Guide then explains (with regard to faith)

  …there can be no true repentance without faith in Christ… In the realm
  of faith, as in that of repentance, some have intruded the doctrine of
  human ability and merit. But as John Murray has said, ‘Faith is not
  something that merits the favour of God. All the efficacy unto
  salvation resides in the Saviour. As one has aptly and truly stated
  the case, it is not faith that saves but faith in Jesus Christ;
  strictly speaking, it is not even faith in Christ that saves but
  Christ that saves through faith’ (Redemption Accomplished and Applied,
  p. 139).

That is a typically Protestant view of saving faith, perfect faith – as opposed to a ‘dead’ faith. Perfect faith acts in accordance with God’s commands. Christians have different degrees of faith, some are weak in faith, yet “he who has begun a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus” – Philippians 1:6.  Now here is the view of good works, as related to such a living, saving faith:

  XVI.  OF GOOD WORKS
  1.  Good works are only such as God hath commanded in his holy word, and not such as, without the warrant thereof, are devised by men out
  of blind zeal, or upon any pretence of good intention.
  2.  These good works, done in obedience to God’s commandments, are the fruits and evidence of a true and lively faith: and by them believers
  manifest their thankfulness, strengthen their assurance, edify their
  brethren, adorn the profession of the gospel, stop the mouths of the
  adversaries, and glorify God, whose workmanship they are created in
  Christ Jesus thereunto; that, having their fruit unto holiness, they
  may have the end eternal life.
  5.  We cannot, by our best works, merit pardon of sin, or eternal life, at the hand of God, by reason of the great disproportion that is
  between them and the glory to come, and the infinite distance that is
  between us and God, whom by them we can neither profit nor satisfy for
  the debt of our former sins… as they are good, they proceed from the
  Spirit; and as they are wrought by us, they are defiled and mixed with
  so much weakness and imperfection, that they cannot endure the
  severity of God’s judgment.
  6.  Yet notwithstanding, the persons of believers being accepted through Christ, their good works also are accepted in him…

The author of the Study Guide goes on to ask,

  What are ‘good works’?  …It is commonly thought that anything done out
  of charity or kindness qualifies as a ‘good work.’ But according to
  the Scripture it is not so. Two requirements are set forth in
  Scripture in order that a work may be truly ‘good’. (1) It must be in
  conformity with the revealed will of God… (2) It must also spring from
  a ‘good conscience’. It must be that which is done with sincerity of
  heart as an act of service to God… The Christian’s ability to do good
  works is not of himself but only of the Holy Spirit who dwells in him…
  But to say that the generative source of all our good works is God is
  in no way to suggest that negligence, slothfulness, or carelessness is
  excusable, as if we were not bound to perform any duty unless we feel
  a special motion of the Holy Spirit directing us thereunto... The
  marvel is not that the good works of believers are so ‘great,’ but
  rather that they are accepted and rewarded at all. If even ‘our
  righteousnesses are as filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6), if even our best
  works are ‘defiled and mixed with much weakness and imperfection,’ how
  is it that they are even called good works at all? The answer is that
  believers have union with Christ… As A.A. Hodge has put it: ‘It is all
  of grace – a grace called a reward added to a grace called a work.’
  That is, both are of God. ‘God promises to reward the Christian just
  as a father promises to reward his child for doing what is its duty,
  and what is for its own benefit alone…’ (Commentary on the Confession
  of Faith, p. 228). (Source: Williamson, G.I., The Westminster
  Confession of Faith for Study Classes pp 96-7, 100, 117, 120, 122 –
  Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1964)

Protestants would say that Abraham’s faith was ‘perfected’ by being so prepared to do what God commanded, that such a work of obedience (to sacrifice his miracle child) glorified God. Thus God stopped Abraham from actually sacrificing the child of promise as his actions were based on faith in the resurrection of the dead; he had a living faith, not merely an intellectual assent to truths.

I hope others will give more of an overview of Protestant explanations as this very abbreviated series of extracts from the Westminster Confession of Faith does not really do justice to this huge subject. But let it be known that Protestants know full well that if they truly have saving faith, they will do good works as evidence of having been given such faith, and that both the receiving and the doing are gifts of God, for His glory.


Why does Christianity have Satan as well as God? Just as a little background:

I study religions as a hobby but I don't really worship them, although they do dramatically affect how I perceive the world. I like to read scriptures. I have read the 5 vedas, Mahabharata, Tuttvartha Sutra, parts of the Tripitaka, The Dhammapada, The Egyptian Amduat, The 12 Gates, The Zend Avista etc etc. Religions interest me, I find them absolutely fascinating to read, and to reflect on. I don't see scriptures as being "right" or "wrong" or "true" or "false" for me they seek to encapsulate a certain amount of wisdom that we can all learn and benefit from so for me, i have no personal conflict between religions, nor do i get offended by strong religious opinions, nor do i feel prolonged loyalty to any particular religion or scripture; although I would be lying if i said I didn't have favourites!

Currently, I am taking a break from Egyptology to try and understand the Bible, which I did partially read as a child as I was brought up Roman Catholic, but I didn't very well understand it, but I'd like to, and there are things that confuse me.

One thing that I am particularly struggling with is that in Christianity, we have the concepts of God as well as Satan. This for me is tricky for me to get my head around, because in many other religions - particularly polytheistic religions God(s) are not necessarily good, nor bad they can be either, or neither depending entirely on perspective. For example: the Hindu God Shiva is depicted as a destroyer, but also as a creative force that clears away the old to make way for the new. Or, if you look at Jainism, "God" is pantheist and above reproach because "The absolute is impersonal", so in that context, it's irrelevant to question whether God can be good or bad, since the Jains see the construct of God as literally being the world around us - the very laws of nature.

The question:

So what I am trying to understand is, as Christianity is monotheistic, why Satan features in the bible at all. There must be a reason for it, and I've no doubt it's a good reason. And my concern is that by not understanding this reason, something fundamental to Christianity is missing from my understanding.

Did the Old Testament always have a concept of Satan or was it added
later?
If so, why was it added? (For example some of the scriptures in the Bible that were present in Coptic scrolls in the Nag Hamadi library e.g. the "Exegesis of the Soul" were destroyed due to a clearout of suspected heretical material in the Bible that may have crept in over the centuries and so do not feature in the 1611 KJV many centuries later.)
Was it added because devout people were afraid to depict actions of God as being negative and they were scared of being seen to blaspheme?
If Satan is there to carry the burden of all evil within the world, are actions such as the anger of God in the old testiment, good or bad, or neither?
Is there any clue in the Bible that gives indication as to why God's anger is not the responsibility of Satan?
Is there an official stance on this, and is it based on the scriptures, or by a figurehead, such as say a saint or a pope?

Essentially the thing I am confused about is the partition or the line between the actions of God and the actions of Satan. Can God do evil, or is it only Satan?

Apologies, I am really trying to make these questions as historically based or scripturally based as possible, and I trying as much as possible to avoid asking an opinion based question, but in religions there is an awful lot of opinion in interpreting scriptures and the history of such things can be clouded over long periods of time by wars, cultural changes and the loss of material.

First off, I like your question because it made me think. Second, no answer can be given that does not also make as many assumptions as your questions. This answer assumes Biblical Inerrancy, a traditional timeline for the writing of all the books, and the assumption that not much editing has occurred between when the books were originally written and today.

1. Did the Old Testament always have a concept of Satan or was it added later?

From a literary standpoint, themes related to Satan run from beginning to end. The only addition is of depth, scope and detail. The first promise of a savior is in Genesis 3:14-15, and that is spoken directly to the serpent. The last reference to Satan is in Revelation, the last book of the Bible.

One place where you can argue that information about Satan was added later is in Job. The literary structure implies that Job is unaware of Satan’s involvement in his suffering, so that detail must have been added later. Tradition holds that Moses wrote down the Book of Job a few centuries after its event occurred. Another view is that Joshua, Moses’ scribe, who finished writing the Pentateuch after the death of Moses, wrote down Job. There are a few phrases found only in Job and Joshua, supporting this view.

Job is interesting because one of his first statements in his complaint is:

  May those who curse days curse that day, those who are ready to rouse
  Leviathan. (Job 3:8, NIV)

God describes Behemoth (a terrestrial monster) and Leviathan (an aquatic one) in detail in Job 41. Then in Revelation 13, two beasts, one from the land and one from the sea, are described. Commentators mostly agree that those two beasts are Behemoth and Leviathan, and the latter is Satan. This makes the final chapter of the first book of the Bible to be written devoted substantially to a representation of Satan.

You might ask, why? Satan, the devil, Lucifer - serves several roles. He is adversary, accuser, liar and murderer. The Old Testament is preoccupied with God as a lawgiver. In a court of law you have the accused and the accuser, testimony and witnesses, criminal, victim and crime. Satan serves as the focus of lying to make false accusations in contradiction to God (especially Jesus) who is the truth. Satan falsely accuses and God forgives. Satan murders and God gives eternal life. Thus, from a literary standpoint, the presence of Satan makes sense. The worldview of both Old and New Testaments is that all things have logical causes and laws that govern them, hence there must be an origin of evil, lies and death, and a good God will reveal it to his people.

2. If so, why was it added? (For example some of the scriptures in the Bible that were present in Coptic scrolls in the Nag Hamadi library e.g. the "Exegesis of the Soul" were destroyed due to a clearout of suspected heretical material in the Bible that may have crept in over the centuries and so do not feature in the 1611 KJV many centuries later.)

My assumption is that it was not added, except as I described concerning the Book of Job.

3. Was it added because devout people were afraid to depict actions of God as being negative and they were scared of being seen to blaspheme?

The Book of Job and Ecclesiastes are each hard-hitting books that subversively question accepted wisdom and false religious ideas that attempt to give simplistic answers to hard questions. Job especially takes exactly the opposite tack of the one you suggest. After relating a conversation between God and Satan in which Satan is given permission to inflict catastrophe upon Job, God never lays blame on Satan in His answer in chapters 38-42. In Genesis, Eve blamed the serpent for her actions, and Adam blamed his wife. God blames no one for Job’s misfortune. He assumes full responsibility - even if that means bad PR for his religion, and Job accepts that and continues to worship that same God:

  Then Job replied to the LORD: “I know that you can do all things; no
  purpose of yours can be thwarted. You asked, ‘Who is this that
  obscures my plans without knowledge?’ Surely I spoke of things I did
  not understand, things too wonderful for me to know. “You said,
  ‘Listen now, and I will speak; I will question you, and you shall
  answer me.’ My ears had heard of you but now my eyes have seen you.
  Therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes.” (Job 42:1-6,
  NIV)

4. If Satan is there to carry the burden of all evil within the world, are actions such as the anger of God in the old testiment, good or bad, or neither?

The Bible distinguishes between God’s anger and man’s.

  My dear brothers and sisters, take note of this: Everyone should be
  quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, because human
  anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires. (James
  1:19-20, NIV)

God’s anger is foreseeable, justified and proportionate.

It is foreseeable, because God gives us His laws so we know what to expect, he does not change them without advance notice, he reveals his future actions via His prophets, and then when the time arrives, He executes His judgment as promised.

  Surely the Sovereign LORD does nothing without revealing his plan to
  his servants the prophets. (Amos 3:7, NIV)

It is justified, because God only punishes according to the truth, cannot be bribed, and does not show favoritism.

  There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does
  evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; but glory, honor and
  peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the
  Gentile. For God does not show favoritism. (Romans 2:9-11, NIV)

It is proportionate. When God sent foreign armies to punish Israel and they overstepped their bounds and tried to cause more harm than He had decreed, He sent distress upon those nations, too.

Israel was exiled for seventy years. They had failed to faithfully honor him on the Sabbath for 490 years, so one seventh of 490 is seventy. Their exile was measured out precisely.

God’s anger is not the anger of Satan who wants to kill. It is the anger of a father who wants to teach, admonish and straighten the path of His children so they will be perfect and can experience joyful fellowship with Him forever. Motive is important. Thus God’s anger is not evil or neutral, it is good.

5. Is there any clue in the Bible that gives indication as to why God's anger is not the responsibility of Satan?

Job finally accepts that the terrors assailing him are part of God’s plan to purify him:

  But he knows the way that I take; when he has tested me, I will come
  forth as gold. (Job 23:10, NIV)

Paul reiterated this idea:

  And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who
  love him, who have been called according to his purpose. (Romans 8:28,
  NIV)

A vital part of the theology of suffering is that God speaks to us in various ways, and one of those ways is suffering. If you look at all of Job’s speeches, you will find that he is publishing a job description for a savior, laying out all the troubles from which he needed God to rescue him. That job description matches point for point every things that Jesus eventually did. So Job’s suffering taught him what was needed in a Savior. Job recognized that he needed a savior with the power of God (could walk on water: He alone stretches out the heavens
and treads on the waves of the sea. (Job 9:8, NIV)) but also the empathy of a fellow, suffering human, whom he called the “son of man”, a title Jesus would later adopt to describe himself:

My friends scorn me;
   my eye pours out tears to God,
that he would argue the case of a man with God,
   as a son of man does with his neighbor.
 (Job 16:20-21, ESV)

Job basically prophesied the incarnation!

6. Is there an official stance on this, and is it based on the scriptures, or by a figurehead, such as say a saint or a pope?

I have based my answer on Scripture. God’s anger surely has many purposes beyond those I have discussed, but most assuredly is a tool that He employs to strengthen our character and give us hope.

  Not only so, but we also glory in our sufferings, because we know that
  suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and
  character, hope. And hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love
  has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who has
  been given to us. (Romans 5:3-5, NIV)

Satan’s Role. It is one thing to say that Satan was not a later addition, but it certainly was an inclusion. The Bible has an author and that author had a purpose in including information in the Bible concerning Satan. Satan is not mentioned often in the Old Testament, and in the New Testament he appears most often as a symbol in Jesus’ parables. Those few appearances occur at crucial times.

There are only five conversations in the Bible where Satan is present. In one (Zechariah 3), Satan is told to shut up and does not get to speak. In two (Matthew and Luke) we hear the same story of Jesus being tempted in the wilderness by Satan, with a slight variation in the ordering of events, we we will count that as one. That leaves Genesis 3 (the temptation of Eve) and Job 1 & 2.

So we have three principal conversations:

In Eden about 6,000 years ago (or more).
In Heaven (discussing Job) about 3,700 years ago
In the wilderness near the Jordan about 2,000 years ago

In the first, Satan speaks to the creation (Eve) to attack the goodness of the Father in withholding the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil from her and Adam.

In the second, Satan speaks to the Father about Job, saying that the man will curse God if made to suffer. Since Job’s great prayer is that his words be written down, Satan is attacking the Word of God - Jesus. If Job failed and cursed God, then the Bible’s first book could never be written.

In the third, Satan speaks to Jesus about - what? Immediately prior to entering the wilderness, Jesus was baptized and the Holy Spirit descended upon him. The Holy Spirit is the Advocate (teacher that explains Jesus’ words) and Comforter (who helps us with our emotions). Satan tried to trick Jesus with lies and scare him into getting angels to help him avoid suffering, persecution and death. Satan was trying to get Jesus to lose his connection to the Holy Spirit. Later in his ministry, Jesus told Peter that Satan wanted to sift him as wheat. What was Peter’s big moment? When he delivered the keynote address on the day of Pentecost. Peter announced the arrival of the Holy Spirit to empower people, work miracles of healing and enable truth to spread to the whole world.

Take this all together, and Satan’s main appearances (apart from Revelation, the end) are to attack the Father, then The Son, then The Holy Spirit - to create division within the members of the Trinity and cause God to fall apart. Satan failed, but in this failure caused the clear Triune nature of God to be manifest.

I am sure that God had other reasons for including stories about Satan than these, but he at least had these reasons.


What evidence is there from scripture for why Daniel did not eat the King's food? Reading through Daniel brings up many questions.  One question that is brought to mind is "what evidence does the scripture provide to show why Daniel would refuse the King's food?"  I have read many opinion answers in a previous post: Why did Daniel consider the allotment of food and wine to be wrong for him to eat?

I am interested in specifically scriptural based answers.  I find in the text that Daniel and his friends were tested for 10 days and and at the end of the test "their features appeared better and fatter in flesh than all the young men who ate the portion of the king's delicacies."(Daniel 1:15)  Is there any more to it than that it was a more healthy option?

There are two primary, though related reasons for why Daniel would not eat the king's food and drink.

Daniel was an Israelite (Dan 1:3) of the tribe of Judah (Dan 1:6).  He would be bound by the dietary laws regarding clean and unclean foods (see commands for example at Lev 11:46-47).  As well, there was preparation and cooking instructions to be followed.  Daniel had no control over these things as regards the food, but only the vegetables and water.

The other reason is that most likely the king's food would have been offered to idols before eating.  This too was not permitted.

  It was the custom to throw a small part of the viands and wine upon the earth, as an initiatory offering to the gods, so as to consecrate to them the whole entertainment (compare Deu 32:38 ).
  -Fausset-

So, the evidence from scripture about why Daniel will not eat basically boils down to it was against their Covenant.


Why was Jeremiah treated well by the Babylonians? Jeremiah was persecuted, and all but killed by his countrymen, the Israelites. But when they were conquered by the Babylonians, he was rescued and treated well by the conquerors.1

Why is that? Was it because he predicted a Babylonian victory, so the Israelites saw him as a traitor and the Babylonians saw him as a "fellow traveler"? Or was it because the Babylonians saw "eye-to-eye" with him on matters of "righteousness," while the Israelites did not?

See the Wikipedia article on Jeremiah

I would suggest Jeremiah 1:7-8 and 1:18-19 as an answer. There we find that it is God who protects him wherever he goes. It wasn't the Babylonians' pity that stayed their hands; God Himself protected Jeremiah from them and the Israelites.

  Jer 1:7  But the LORD said unto me, Say not, I am a child: for thou
  shalt go to all that I shall send thee, and whatsoever I command thee
  thou shalt speak.  Jer 1:8  Be not afraid of their faces: for I am
  with thee to deliver thee, saith the LORD.

  Jer 1:18  For, behold, I have made thee this day a defenced city, and
  an iron pillar, and brasen walls against the whole land, against the
  kings of Judah, against the princes thereof, against the priests
  thereof, and against the people of the land.  Jer 1:19  And they shall
  fight against thee; but they shall not prevail against thee; for I am
  with thee, saith the LORD, to deliver thee.


The first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument for the existence of God The first premise of the KCA is stated as:

Premise 1: Anything that begins to exist must have a cause.

The contrapositive statement for this should read. If something is not caused to exist then that something does not have a beginning.

My question is related to the trinity. Would it also be true that anything that has a cause must have a beginning? If applied to the second person of the trinity should it not follow that since the Son depends on the father for his existence. ie. The second person of the trinity is the only begotten Son of the Father, then the preexistent Son of God must have had a beginning?

Please help.

It sounds like you think generation of the Son by the Father implies there was a time when the Son did not exist; however, all three Persons are co-eternal.

St. Thomas, in Summa Theologica I q. 27 a. 2 ("Whether any procession in God can be called generation?") c., distinguishes between and compares the two senses of "generation":

  The procession of the Word in God is called generation. In proof whereof we must observe that generation has a twofold meaning: one common to everything subject to generation and corruption; in which sense generation is nothing but change from non-existence to existence. In another sense it is proper and belongs to living things; in which sense it signifies the origin of a living being from a conjoined living principle; and this is properly called birth. Not everything of that kind, however, is called begotten; but, strictly speaking, only what proceeds by way of similitude. Hence a hair has not the aspect of generation and sonship, but only that has which proceeds by way of a similitude. Nor will any likeness suffice; for a worm which is generated from animals has not the aspect of generation and sonship, although it has a generic similitude; for this kind of generation requires that there should be a procession by way of similitude in the same specific nature; as a man proceeds from a man, and a horse from a horse. So in living things, which proceed from potential to actual life, such as men and animals, generation includes both these kinds of generation. But if there is a being whose life does not proceed from potentiality to act, procession (if found in such a being) excludes entirely the first kind of generation; whereas it may have that kind of generation which belongs to living things. So in this manner the procession of the Word in God is generation; for He proceeds by way of intelligible action, which is a vital operation:—from a conjoined principle (as above described):—by way of similitude, inasmuch as the concept of the intellect is a likeness of the object conceived:—and exists in the same nature, because in God the act of understanding and His existence are the same, as shown above (q. 14 a. 4). Hence the procession of the Word in God is called generation; and the Word Himself proceeding is called the Son.


What's the Biblical basis for the rapture? I don't like questioning anyone's faith but one of my friends is a mainstream Christian (Uniting Church) and she believes very firmly in the phenomenon of "rapture".

As I understand it, rapture is when all the good people will be united with Christ upon His Second Coming. Those who are left behind will go through seven years of hell. The initial years will be OK as the world will move towards a 'one world government' but then everyone will be tagged (the devil's mark) and the horrors will follow. Those who refuse to be tagged will be tortured and if they resist, they would be ultimately saved when Christ comes again after seven years.

The worst thing is that there are many dates fixed for rapture, today (24 July) being one of them. These dates are fixed by people who claim that this was revealed to them in some form and they need to share this message with others.

I really don't want to question anyone faith (whether it is revealed to them or not is their business) but the whole rapture 'thingy' sounds very scary to me.

Is there any basis of this interpretation in the Bible?

Note: With faith based matters, you really cannot claim too much objectivity, so scientific measures do not readily apply here. That said, it makes it even more difficult to understand this claim.

The Rapture is one of the events that is believed will occur during the end-times.  There are several different end-times scenarios that are all based on slightly different interpretations of Scripture, but the three major ones all agree that it will occur.

(A comparison of some of the views can be found here.)

The term "Rapture" means "Caught up".  The word itself comes from 1 Thessalonians 4:17 (KJV)

  Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with
  them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever
  be with the Lord.

The end times events are covered in many books in the Bible, but primarily in the Book of Daniel, The Book of the Revelation, 1 Thessalonians, and Matthew 24.  Your friend's description is known as the "Pre-Tribulation Rapture" interpretation of end-times events, which is held to by many denominations, but is definitely not the only interpretation.

One minor point, is that you mentioned that the "good people" will be raptured.  That's not quite right.  The Christians will be Raptured according to Scripture.  Christians are not Christians because they are good, or because they go to Church, or because they claim to be in a certain religion.

The Biblical definition of a Christian is someone who has been saved, or redeemed by Christ.  Christianity isn't about being "good enough" to get to heaven, or about religious traditions, it's about Christ, and the free gift of eternal life that we gain by simply accepting His free gift, by faith. (More here.)

As far as predicting the date, that's a fool's game.  Christ Himself said that nobody would know the date, and that it would take us by surprise.

  Mark 13:28-37 (King James Version)

  28 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When her branch is yet tender,
  and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is near:

  29 So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass,
  know that it is nigh, even at the doors.

  30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till
  all these things be done.

  31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

  32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels
  which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

  33 Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is.

  34 For the Son of Man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his
  house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work,
  and commanded the porter to watch.

  35 Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house
  cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the
  morning:

  36 Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping.

  37 And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch.

The number of people that have claimed to know the date of the Rapture, and have seen that date come and go are countless.  We don't know the dates. We can see the signs of the times - the types of events and state of the world that is predicted, but not down to the date.

It could be 2 seconds from now, it could be a hundred years from now, or it could be longer.  We just don't know, but it is promised that it will occur, and that we are to watch for it.

So, if the Bible is true, and it is the Word of God as claimed, and Jesus was the Son of God, and The Way, The Truth, and The Life, and the only way to Heaven there's no time to lose.  If you've not already accepted Christ as your Savior, now's the time.


Why does the angel of the Lord call out from heaven to Abraham at Genesis 22? At Genesis 22:1, "Now it came about after these things that "GOD" tested Abraham. At verse 2, "And He/God said, "Take now your son, your only son, whom you love Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah; and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you."
Verse 9, Then they came to the place of which God had told him; and Abraham built the altar there, and arranged the wood, and bound his son Isaac, and laid him on the altar on top of the wood." Verse 10, "And Abraham stretched out his hand and took the knife to slay his son."
Verse 11, "But the angel of the Lord called to him from heaven, and said, "Abraham, Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am. Verse 12, "And he said/the angel of the Lord, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me." At verses 13-14 the Lord provides a ram for Abraham to sacrifice.
Verse 15, "Then the angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time from heaven, vs16, and said, (the angel of the Lord is speaking), By Myself I have sworn, declares the Lord, because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only son, vs17, "indeed I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens, and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your seed shall possess the gate of their enemies."
Verse 18, "And in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed MY VOICE." The following is a list of verses where God Himself calls out from heaven. Genesis 21:17, Exodus 20:22, Deuteronomy 4:36, Nehemiah 9:13, Daniel 4:31 and other in the Old Testament.
Here are some in the New Testament. Mark 1:11, Luke 3:22, John 12:28, 2 Peter 1:18, Revelation 14:2 and Revelation 12:10. There are also others in the NT. Since God had no problem speaking from heaven numerous times, why does the angel of the Lord call out to Abraham from heaven two times at Genesis 22:11, and at Genesis 22:15 claiming to be God?
This is confirmed by the writer of the book of Hebrews at Hebrews 6:13-14, "For when God made the promise to Abraham, since He could swear by no one greater, HE SWORE BY HIMSELF, vs14, saying, I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply you."

OK, a response for consideration. Not necessarily one you are looking for, but one for consideration.
Genesis is a book, written not just ‘in’ Hebrew, but ‘by’ a Hebrew. And, for an audience who were Hebrews. And it is important to understand this, so that when we read it, we don’t read it from a ‘western’ perspective. An example...
GENESIS 38: 7 But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and the Lord killed him.
‘We’ read this, and it ‘says’ that the Lord killed him. That’s what it says - in ‘our’ reading. But, to a Hebrew listener/reader, they would be interpreting this from their worldview. And they would instinctively/naturally ‘read/understand’ this passage in this way. .....
This firstborn child was killed, [by someone] because they were ‘wicked’. God is sovereign. Therefore if this person ‘killed’ the firstborn, God must of allowed it. Because this man was wicked. - Therefore The Lord killed him.
So, when God ‘speaks’, it is not necessarily God speaking directly. It will be a representative. BUT when this representative ‘speaks’, it will be as if God is speaking. And importantly - important for ‘westerners’ to ‘know’, itwillbe written as if God (The Lord) is speaking, even though it is a representative.
So we have ..
EXODUS 3: 7 And the Lord said: “I have surely seen the oppression of My people who are in Egypt, and have heard their cry because of their taskmasters, for I know their sorrows
Note - Who is speaking. Note how the ‘author of Genesis’ (Moses, a Hebrew, writing to Hebrews, not westerners!) says it is the Lord. Here, the Lord is speaking to Moses. And now note who Moses responds to .....
EXODUS 3: 11 But Moses said to God ...
But, here is the crucial aspect. The point. Exactly who was in the Burning Bush? ‘We’ would say it was God, or the Lord. But, we don’t need to answer this, the Bible tells us .... at the start of this story ..... clearly!
EXODUS 3: 2 And the Angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush.
Now, in ‘western thinking’, we have a crowd in that bush. More than one entity. But - in Hebrew thinking we have an angel. A messenger. A representative. An ‘entity’ representing God, but [importantly] it is as if it were God himself! And in any account of this incident, it would be ‘written/related’ as if it were God.
‘Westerners’ struggle with this concept of representation. A Hebrew  wouldn’t. So we ‘look’ for ways to resolve this, example by calling this a ‘Christophony’. Note- I am not saying this can’t be, or wasn’t a pre-incarnation. I am showing, outlining the ‘thinking’ behind how this was written..... because.....
.... This answers your query. That it wasn’t (just/only) an angel who called to Abraham, as far as Abraham would have ‘seen/heard’ this, to him - even though that’s the way it was written - it was God.  And in fact, all those ‘other’ incidents throughout the Old Testament that ‘say’ it was God, it would have been a representative (angle/the angel/a prophet/etc.).
God has only ever worked [on earth] through a ‘representative’, example Jesus, and these days, the Holy Spirit.


Calvinists: How to avoid justification from eternity? I'm having trouble understanding how Calvinists avoid the doctrine of justification from eternity, which roughly states that the elect are justified either before the creation of the world or at the moment of the crucifixion rather than at the moment of personal belief. Because there is not a single Bible verse which clearly and unambiguously states that Christ died only for the elect, Calvinists typically attempt to prove their doctrine of limited atonement based on the double payment argument, basically that it would be unjust of God to punish the same sins twice. I don't understand how this argument doesn't backfire on the Calvinist unless he believes in the aforementioned 'justification from eternity', which most Calvinists thoroughly reject.

If Calvinists believe in effectual atonement (which includes the legally-binding expiation of sins in Calvinist theology), and the atonement was inarguably made at a specific point in time many years ago for all elect souls, then on what basis does the wrath of God fall upon the yet unsaved elect? How is God justified in expressing wrath and condemnation towards elect men who have already had their sins propitiated by Christ many years prior? What is their crime if their sins have already been effectually expiated in a strict legal sense?

If I put my Calvinist hat on, there's only two solutions I can come up with:

1) There is no wrath of God against the elect and forgiveness and reconciliation occur at the cross and not at the moment of personal belief (justification from eternity). This view would require some serious contortion of many clear Biblical passages not unlike what Calvinists do with the plethora of Bible verses that clearly state that Christ died for all men.

2) Even though the atonement was made at the cross, forgiveness and reconciliation don't become effectual until one believes. But then, this is the exact view of the atonement held by non-Calvinists. So, why do Calvinists argue that a universal atonement would necessarily imply a universal salvation (universalism) if they themselves believe that the application of the atonement is contingent on personal faith and does not follow immediately from the act of atonement itself?

Neither option looks good to me if I'm a 5-point Calvinist. Is there a solution that I'm missing? How have Calvinists traditionally avoided this predicament?

You are asking for a solution to what you see as an intractable problem. A classically Arminian view has been stated. The Five Points of Arminianism include these three (which relate directly to your question):

1)  Man, although affected by the Fall, was not totally incapable of choosing spiritual good, and was able to exercise faith in God in order to receive the gospel and thus bring himself into possession of salvation.

2)  God laid his hands upon individuals who he knew (or foresaw) would respond to the gospel. God elected those that he saw would want to be saved of their own free will and in their natural fallen state – which was, of course, according to the first point of Arminianism, not completely fallen anyway.

3)  Christ died to save all men; but only in a potential fashion. Christ’s death enabled God to pardon sinners, but only on condition that they believed.

It would appear that you subscribe to the above, but Calvinists believe that man’s state is a total inability to gain, or contribute to his own salvation, so anyone thinking otherwise is never going to follow the line of scriptural reasons Calvinists offer on the second and third points, which proceed from the first one. Bishop J.C. Ryle said long ago that,

  “There are very few errors and false doctrines of which the beginning
  may not be traced up to unsound views about the corruption of human
  nature. Wrong views of a disease will always bring with them wrong
  views of a remedy. Wrong views of the corruption of human nature will
  always carry with them wrong views of the grand antidote and cure of
  that corruption.” (As quoted in ‘The Five Points of Calvinism’ by W.J.
  Seaton, page 9, Banner of Truth Trust, 1983 reprint.)

This, I respectfully suggest, is the reason why you have presented what you see as an intractable problem. You said, “If I put my Calvinist hat on, there's only two solutions I can come up with…” but you cannot put a Calvinist hat on until you agree that fallen man is unable to do anything to contribute towards his salvation, and as that affects understanding of all the five points of Calvinism, you are not even a one-point Calvinist. No wonder you see an impossible dilemma!  However, the logic of the five points of Calvinism can be simply stated like this:

  “Man is totally unable to save himself on account of the Fall in the
  Garden of Eden being a total fall. If unable to save himself, then God
  must save. If God must save, then God must be free to save whom he
  will. If God has decreed to save whom he will, then it is for those
  that Christ made atonement on the cross. If Christ died for them, then
  the Holy Spirit will effectually call them into that salvation. If
  salvation then from the beginning has been of God, the end will also
  be of God and the saints will persevere to eternal joy.” [op. cit.
  page 8]

The matter of when the saving effects of the atonement are applied will only be solved if you accept the solution lies in correctly diagnosing the nature of the sin that prevents man from even being able to contribute towards his salvation. But for as long as anybody thinks that God’s salvation is dependent on the person doing something before God can grant salvation, then God is not God Almighty – he is limited by sinful human choices! Yet, because God IS God Almighty, he has decreed from before the founding of the world that Christ was chosen to be a lamb without blemish or defect whose precious blood would redeem “God’s elect… who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood.” 1 Peter 1:1-2 and verses 18-21


Are natural disasters the result of evil being allowed into our world? I remember reading somewhere that the reason there are natural disasters on this earth is because of the evil which was allowed into it when Adam and Eve sinned.  I have not been able to find this reference, though.

Has anyone else seen this, and are there any biblical references saying that natural disasters are caused by evil?

I see ALL destruction as God breathed.
All destruction and decay is because sin entered the world, before sin, this world was perfect. So how did all of this decay, destruction, evil get into the world and where does it come from?
Well, to some extent it is true that without God these things will happen, the problem you have with that theology, is that EVERYTHING was/is created by God and EVERYTHING is sustained by Him. Literally nothing that is, exists outside of God.

Colossians 1:17 (NIV)
17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

God is set against the wicked every day. He is constantly set against His enemies, He promises to never give them rest.

Romans 1:18  (NKJV)
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in
unrighteousness,

Israel's History
Look back at Israel and you'll see that every time the people were disobedient God sent destruction upon them in many fashions: plagues, famine, disease, war, earthly disaster and even miracles of disaster.
Man is the source of unjust Evil
In the last section I mentioned evil for two purposes, one for just purposes, which is the evil from God and the other for unjust purposes, which is not from God. Men on the other hand are continuously creating evil for the sake of being evil. This is what the gospel is all about. We are a wicked and filthy people, literally enemies of God.
Luke 6:45 NIV

A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart,
and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his
heart. For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of.

Matthew 13:41 NIV

The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his
kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil.

God is the source of Wrath/Evil for a just cause
Let's not discount God's ability to bring wrath and destruction onto/into the world. See in these next verses where God has actually promised to bring evil/destruction upon sinners.
Isaiah 45:7 KJV

"I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these things."

Amos 3:6 KJV

Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid?
shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?

Joshua 23:15 NIV

But just as all the good things the LORD your God has promised you
have come to you, so he will bring on you all the evil things he has
threatened, until the LORD your God has destroyed you from this good
land he has given you.

1 Samuel 16:15 NIV

Saul’s attendants said to him, “See, an evil spirit from God is
tormenting you.

Understand that God does these evil acts as acts of Justice. He tells us that all of His ways are Just and He does these things because of the wickedness of the people.
Job 34:10

“So listen to me, you men of understanding. Far be it from God to do
evil, from the Almighty to do wrong.

In Job it is referring to God doing evil for the sake of doing evil and not for a just purpose.
Disasters are from God as a form of His justice.


What did St. Thomas Aquinas write about Christ's passion? St. Thomas Aquinas never wrote a complete treatise devoted solely to Christ's passion. So what did St. Thomas Aquinas have to say about Christ's passion?

This contains a collection of excerpts from St. Thomas's works (e.g., his Summa, quodlibetal questions, and commentaries on the Gospels) that pertain to the passion:

Meditations for Lent from St. Thomas Aquinas (audiobook)


Does the 'Sons of Jacob' refer to only Jews, or also Christians and Muslims? There is a song by Damian Marley that refers to "The sleeping sons of Jacob". I looked up 'Sons of Jacob' on Wikipedia and now understand them to represent the 12 tribes of Israel, but I have only heard "sleeping" sons of Jacob in the Damian Marley song.

I am curious to know what the significance of "Sleeping" may be, if anything. Is this a reference to some religious concept?

Having read the lyrics, I'm not convinced this has anything to do with the biblical Jacob at all. There is no other reference, except for an oblique reference to Israel.

If one does assume that this is the Jacob who became Israel (hence Jews only), then the "sleeping sons of Jacob" would probably refer to the lost 10 tribes of Israel. After Israel was invaded by Assyria in 722bc, the northern tribes were dispersed throughout the empire and the known world. After that invasion, only Judah and Benjamin (the remaining two tribes of the Southern kingdom) retained any distinct identity as Jews.  Some parts of Africa (Uganda and Ethiopia to name two in particular) claim to be descended from these northern tribes.

The idea that a once great part of western history is alive in Africa could be the spark the writer wishes to blow into full flame, that Africa might "wake up" and play a greater role on the world stage, as it did in the past.

To get back to the Biblical issue, however, it is Abraham- Jacob's grandfather, who is the father of the Jews, Christians, and Muslims.

According to both the Quran and the Torah, Abraham sent out Ishmael, once Isaac was born. Ishmael, and his birth mother Hagar made it to Egypt. Both traditions state that Ishmael was Abraham's firstborn, and Islam posits that Ishmael was also supposed to be the promised son of the Lord. Isaac, the father of the Jews  (through Jacob, later renamed Israel) and the Edomites (through Esau) is not a Muslim hero, whereas Ishmael is.


Generational Curses vs Personal Resposibility There are numerous passages that support the concept of generational curses - that children will be punished for the sins of their parents.

Exodus 20:5, Exodus 34:7, Numbers 14:18, Deuteronomy 5:9
You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,
Jeremiah 32:18
You show love to thousands but bring the punishment for the parents’ sins into the laps of their children after them. Great and mighty God, whose name is the Lord Almighty,

There are other verses that say that a person will be treated according to their own actions and not the actions of ancestors or descendants.

Deuteronomy 24:16
Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin.
Ezekiel 18:20,30
The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them...
“Therefore, you Israelites, I will judge each of you according to your own ways, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent! Turn away from all your offenses; then sin will not be your downfall.

These seem to me to be in direct conflict. Has there been any scholarship or commentaries that address this difference? A Protestant response would be preferred but I would appreciate an answer from any tradition.

Each passage was written for its times and its own purpose.

The threats of intergenerational accountability (Exodus 20:5, Exodus 34:7, Numbers 14:18, Deuteronomy 5:9) were written to make the Jews really think about the consequences of worshipping other gods - they might not have been worried about their own fate, but what about their children and grandchildren?

Ezekiel wrote at a time when Babylon was swallowing up Judah and he was aware of the despair and fatalistic loss of hope felt by his compatriots. As long as they believed that they were being punished for the sins of their forebears, the Jews had no reason for hope or (importantly for Ezekiel) for following him in the worship of Yahweh. Daniel I. Block (The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24) says [(b) The Answer (18:19-20)] his rejection of any deterministic notion of intergenerational accountability was a response to this. By declaring that a person’s righteousness and wickedness will be credited to that person’s account only, Ezekiel slams the door on the old fatalistic illusion.

Deuteronomy 24:16 is subtly different. This does not talk about whether God will punish children for the sins of their fathers, but is a commandment to the Jews, that they should not do so:

  Deuteronomy 24:16: The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.


What is the breath of life spoken of in Genesis 2:7? In Genesis chapter two verse seven God created man from the dust and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils;

  Genesis 2:7  KJV  And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

The original words used in the Hebrew were:

Breath:

נְשָׁמָה

  nshamah (nesh-aw-maw') n-f.

    a puff, i.e. wind, angry or vital breath, divine inspiration, intellect. or (concretely) an animal

  KJV: blast, (that) breath(-eth), inspiration, soul, spirit.

and life:

חַי

  chay (khah'-ee) adj.

    alive
    (hence) raw (flesh)
    fresh (plant, water, year), strong
    (as noun, especially in the feminine singular and masculine plural) life (or living thing), whether literally or figuratively

  KJV: + age, alive, appetite, (wild) beast, company, congregation, life(-time), live(-ly), living (creature, thing), maintenance, + merry, multitude, + (be) old, quick, raw, running, springing, troop.

Chay Is the same word used in 1Kings 17:17 which is just breath.

Since  נְשָׁמָה can also be interpreted as soul, could breath be a mistranslation in light of the second part of the verse "and man became a living soul".

Or is there some other explanation for the breath of life, such as oxygen absorption, which has been prove to be the case of a fetus in the womb?

Please make you answer as Biblical as possible.

Thank you.

If you want to down vote any of my questions or answers that is fine, but at least be courteous enough to tell me what is unacceptable about my question or answer. Otherwise I must assume you really don't have a reason and are just a mean person.

In Hebrew thinking/usage "breath" is what separates animals from plants. Plants have no "breath," but animals do.
This same phrase is used in the account of the flood.

Genesis 7:15 (KJV)
And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.

This phrase is used of everything that got on the ark (Ge 7:15), as well as the animals and humans that didn't get on the ark (Ge 7:22).
Hebrew writers liked to employ parallelism, and it seems that the way things are phrased in Genesis 2:7 is little more than an example of that: saying two things that essentially mean the same thing but are stated in different ways.

Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path. (Ps 119:105)
O LORD, who may abide in Your tent? Who may dwell on Your holy hill? (Ps 15:1)


What happens if one wishes to go through the RCIA process but lacks a sponsor? I've seen many explanations of the RCIA process, but all of them I've found make reference to a sponsor of sorts.

A local parish's website explains:

  A sponsor accompanies any candidate seeking admission as a catechumen.
  Sponsors are persons who have known and assisted the candidates and
  stand as witnesses to the candidates' moral character, faith, and
  intention (see Godparents Role In Baptism.)

Another question indicates that the sponsors/godparents must meet certain requirements.

Here's the problem:

Were I to go through this, I would be the only Catholic in my family that I know of. Supposedly I have an aunt in the faith, but she lives both a great distance away, and we're really not all that familiar. (In other words, it sounds like she wouldn't meet the requirements.)

What would I do in this case? Can one be initiated without a godparent or sponsor?

The Church believes that it is important for a baptizand (in this context also called the catechumen) to have a sponsor, for a couple of reasons. The Church considers the newly baptized to be part of the community, and the community takes part in their post-baptism catechesis. The sponsors are there at least partly to represent the community's part in the life of the newly baptized. In addition, the sponsor is a witness of the baptism, and can vouch for the fact that the baptizand is in fact part of the community of the Church.

It's for these reasons that there are the restrictions you mention on the person of the sponsor. Sponsors must stand ready before and after the baptism to help the baptizand grow as a Christian, as an individual and a member of the Catholic community.

The catechism doesn't say much about sponsors; what it does say places them in the context of the responsibility the Church as a community takes for the development of the faith of each member. Paragraph 1255 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

  For the grace of Baptism to unfold, the parents' help is important. So too is the role of the godfather and godmother, who must be firm believers, able and ready to help the newly baptized—child or adult—on the road of Christian life. Their task is a truly ecclesial function (officium). The whole ecclesial community bears some responsibility for the development and safeguarding of the grace given at Baptism.

Paragraph 1253 adds:

  Baptism is the sacrament of faith. But faith needs the community of believers. It is only within the faith of the Church that each of the faithful can believe. The faith required for Baptism is not a perfect and mature faith, but a beginning that is called to develop. The catechumen or the godparent is asked: "What do you ask of God’s Church?" The response is: "Faith!"

The Code of Canon Law, which deals with baptismal sponsors in canons 872–874, simply reiterates that a sponsor

  assists an adult in Christian initiation. ... [and] also helps the baptized person to lead a Christian life in keeping with baptism and to fulfill faithfully the obligations inherent in it.

But this task, important as it is, doesn't in itself require intimate knowledge of the personality or character of the baptizand. It requires some level of knowledge and friendship, and a Christian love; but need not require more. For this reason, it's completely appropriate for a sponsor to be someone else from the parish, even if they are not a close friend.

Canon law even anticipates that it may not be possible to find an acceptable sponsor; it does not require one absolutely:

  Insofar as possible, a person to be baptized is to be given a sponsor...

However, this is (so it appears) intended to be a last resort. The Rite of Baptism for Adults does anticipate that there will be sponsors for each catechumen, and (along with the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults generally) gives an important role to them.

The RCIA in fact appears to draw a distinction between a sponsor and a godparent—see this handbook (PDF) used by the Diocese of Columbus, Ohio, page 3-2. According to this document, the sponsor, who is present at the beginning of the process,

  is a person from the community who comes to know the candidate well, who accompanies the candidate on their lifelong faith journey, and who testifies publicly in liturgical ceremonies to the candidate's moral character, faith and intention—that is, to the candidate's readiness to advance to each new step in the process.

The godparent

  establishes a spiritual relationship with the catechumen that lasts forever. ... A godparent upholds the catechumen in times of fear or hesitation, testifies to the catechumen's readiness, serves as a model and guides the catechumen in the Christian life.

The document states that the catechumen may select their sponsor as the godparent, but need not. The fundamental difference, though, is that the sponsor is to help the catechumen discern their readiness to enter the Catholic Church, whereas the godparent helps them (both before and after baptism) to live a Christian life and grow in faith. But at any rate it doesn't appear necessary from these descriptions that either sponsor or godparent be one who initially knows the catechumen intimately.


Was there a reason why God sent Jonah to Nineveh and not some other city? God sent Jonah to prophesy to the Babylonian city of Nineveh, which he did with the greatest of reluctance, thereby effecting the largest mass conversion of a city up to that time.

It's possible that Nineveh was a "random" city, but that's probably not the case, given its size and strategic importance. Instead, what made Nineveh significant enough to be chosen in God's eyes?

Was Nineveh the "second" city of Babylon, after the capital, in the manner of New York City versus Washington D.C.?

Did Nineveh have a "Sodom and Gomorrah" reputation, making it the worst city of Babylon?

Was Nineveh unusually open and "cosmopolitan," thereby making it the easiest city to convert?

Or was there some other reason that I have overlooked?

Jonah 1:2 says

  "Go to the great city of Nineveh and preach against it, because its wickedness has come up before me." (NIV)

So, we can say from there that they had sinned greatly in the eyes of God, and had they not repented, they would be destroyed (Jonah 3:4 says "...Nineveh will be overthrown"). Of course, your question was "why Nineveh in particular?" I'll elaborate on that.

First, a correction: Nineveh wasn't a Babylonian city, it was one of the largest cities of Assyria, another one of Israel's enemies. I want to say it was also the capital during Jonah's time; at the very least there is a mention of a "king of Nineveh" (Jonah 3:6). Sennacherib lived in Nineveh (see 2 Kings 19:36), though he is a little bit after Jonah's time.1

Using your analogy then, I wouldn't equate Nineveh with New York City, I'd equate it with Washington, D.C., though the Bible does explicitly mention that the city is big

  ...Now Nineveh was an exceedingly great city, three days' journey in breadth (Jonah 3:3, ESV)

As far as strategy goes, there's also this to consider: Assyria was the one that conquered Israel (the ten tribes) not long after Jonah went to preach to Nineveh.2

In short, you could single out Nineveh since it was a very important city for one of Israel's enemies, and posed a very real threat to Israel and Judah.

1 My bible has a table of dates putting Jonah in 793-753 BC. Sennacherib attacked Judah during Hezekiah's reign (2 Kings 18:13-19:36), which according to the same table is 727-698 BC. This is also consistent with Wikipedia's pegging of Sennacherib's reign at 705-681 BC.
2 The same table lists the conquering of Israel by Assyria at 722 BC. See also 2 Kings 17:6.


Are there any authors that who believe Eph. 4:11 is not describing titles but general characteristics of how God created the church to work together? Ephesians 4:11ff reads:

  And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.

(Ephesians 4:11–13, American Standard Version)

I have been attempting to view the NT early church as an expression of the DNA of Christ instead of a clear blueprint of what the church should look like today. This is one example of the kind of passage that I have been struggling to understand correctly. Is there an author anyone knows of that might give me this perspective or can anyone tell me from this passage and the context if there does seem to be a very specific blueprint?

"Blueprint" implies that the Church was yet to be constructed, but this is not the case.  Its establishment at Pentecost was documented in the Acts of the Apostles, and the Praxapostolos of the New Testament documents its earliest years.

I don't think the allusions to the future (e.g. until we all attain to the unity of the faith) refer to how the Church will look in the future, but rather how each one of us must approach the Church during their life, whenever that might occur.  Also, the ASV has diluted some of the stronger wording in the original Greek.  Verse 12 does not read, "for the equipping of the saints", but rather "for the PERFECTING of the saints".  Verse 13 does not read "until we attain to ... the knowledge of God", but rather "until we attain to ... the FULL knowledge of God", nor does it read "mature man", but rather "PERFECT man".  In short, it is in the Church where we strive to attain the perfection that we were commanded by Christ to attain (Matthew 5:48).

One author who can provide a good perspective on the verse is John Chrysostom, who wrote and preached in Greek at Constantinople in the 4th century.  I think his commentaries on the Gospels, Acts, and the Epistles of Paul are the best available, even after so many centuries.  His commentary on the above passage is as follows:

  And He gave some to be apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the
  saints, unto the work of ministering, unto the building up of the body
  of Christ.  What he said elsewhere, “Wherefore also God hath
  highly exalted Him” (Phil. 2:9), that saith he also here. “He that
  descended, is the same also that ascended.” It did Him no injury that
  He came down into the lower parts of the earth, nor was it any
  hindrance to His becoming far higher than the Heavens. So that the
  more a man is humbled, so much the more is he exalted. For as in the
  case of water, the more a man presses it downwards, the more he forces
  it up; and the further a man retires to hurl a javelin, the surer his
  aim; so is it also with humility. However, when we speak of ascents
  with reference to God, we must needs conceive a descent first; but
  when with reference to man, not at all so. Then he goes on to show
  further His providential care, and His wisdom, for He who hath wrought
  such things as these, who had such might, and who refused not to go
  down even to those lower parts for our sakes, never would He have made
  these distributions of spiritual gifts without a purpose. Now
  elsewhere he tells us that this was the work of the Spirit, in the
  words, “In the which the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops to feed the
  Church of God.” And here he saith that it is the Son; and elsewhere
  that it is God. “And He gave to the Church some apostles, and some
  prophets.” But in the Epistle to the Corinthians, he saith, “I
  planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.” And again, “Now
  he that planteth and he that watereth are one: but each shall receive
  his own reward according to his own labor.” (1 Cor. 3:6–8.) So is it
  also here; for what if thou bring in but little? Thou hast received so
  much. First, he says, “apostles”; for these had all gifts;
  secondarily, “prophets,” for there were some who were not indeed
  apostles, but prophets, as Agabus; thirdly, “evangelists,” who did not
  go about everywhere, but only preached the Gospel, as Priscilla and
  Aquila; “pastors and teachers,” those who were entrusted with the
  charge of a whole nation. What then? are the pastors and the teachers
  inferior? Yes, surely; those who were settled and employed about one
  spot, as Timothy and Titus, were inferior to those who went about the
  world and preached the Gospel. However, it is not possible from this
  passage to frame the subordination and precedence, but from another
  Epistle. “He gave,” saith he; thou must not say a word to gainsay it.
  Or perhaps by “evangelists” he means those who wrote the Gospel.

  For the perfecting of the saints unto the work of ministering, unto the building up of the body of Christ.  Perceive ye the
  dignity of the office? Each one edifies, each one perfects, each one
  ministers.  Ver. 13. “Till we all attain,” he proceeds, “unto
  the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a
  full-grown man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of
  Christ.”  By “stature” here he means perfect “knowledge”; for
  as a man will stand firmly, whereas children are carried about and
  waver in mind, so is it also with believers.  “To the unity,”
  saith he, “of the faith.”  That is, until we shall be shown to
  have all one faith: for this is unity of faith, when we all are one,
  when we shall all alike acknowledge the common bond. Till then thou
  must labor to this end. If for this thou hast received a gift, that
  thou mightest edify others, look well that thou overturn not thyself,
  by envying another. God hath honored thee, and ordained thee, that
  thou shouldest build up another. Yea, for about this was the Apostle
  also engaged; and for this was the prophet prophesying and persuading,
  and the Evangelist preaching the Gospel, and for this was the pastor
  and teacher; all had undertaken one common work. For tell me not of
  the difference of the spiritual gifts; but that all had one work. Now
  when we shall all believe alike then shall there be unity; for that
  this is what he calls “a perfect man,” is plain. And yet he elsewhere
  calls us “babes” (1 Cor. 13:11), even when we are of mature age; but
  he is there looking to another comparison, for there it is in
  comparison with our future knowledge that he there calls us babes. For
  having said, “We know in part” (1 Cor. 13:9, 12), he adds also the
  word “darkly,” and the like: whereas here he speaks with reference to
  another thing, with reference to changeableness, as he saith also
  elsewhere, “But solid food is for full-grown men.” (Heb. 5:14.) Do you
  see then also in what sense he there calls them full-grown? Observe
  also in what sense he calls men “perfect” here, by the words next
  added, where he says, “that we may be no longer children.” That we
  keep, he means to say, that little measure, which we may have
  received, with all diligence, with firmness and steadfastness.


Did medieval European monasticism provide a release from certain societal pressures? I seem to recall a science fiction/fantasy author (possibly Marion Zimmer Bradley in the context of her Darkover series) stating that monasticism provided a means of relieving social pressures by giving an honorable place for misfits to function. (In some ways similar to modern military service in some countries, though modern military service seems to have increasingly emphasized an apprenticeship aspect, trading a term of service for training. There may also be similarities in how universities provide something of a haven for misfits.)

Obviously, reducing the division of an estate and removing potential rivals for a title would have practical benefits, but I am more interested in the misfit aspect.

Did medieval monasticism help keep misfits from being a burden (if unproductive) or nuisance (if disruptive) to society while also allowing misfits to be somewhat true to themselves and pursue a valued occupation?

Monasticism is frequently associated with "the contemplative life", as opposed to "the active life". While there are many different kinds of monastics, an important subset is those who are chiefly engaged in maintaining a simple, prayerful life in an enclosed community, and are therefore found much more towards the contemplative end of the spectrum.

The contemplative life was often characterized as being more "elevated" than the active: a pursuit that not all were capable of sustaining. Isidore of Seville writes:

  The active life is the innocence of good works; the contemplative life is the regarding of higher things. The one is common among the many; but the other among the few. 1

It is a common observation that the contemplative life was most suited to those given to contemplation - for example, being capable of thinking about one thing for a long time. Further, those with attachments to business affairs, or who sought marriage, were advised to embrace the active life. Gregory the Great associates the contemplative life with those who are dissatisfied with common life, having "troubled souls" (in amaritudine animae) as they are "crucified to the world" (Galatians 6:14) and suspicious of earthly rewards. 2

The active and contemplative lives are frequently allegorized by the figures of Leah and Rachel (Genesis 29ff), or by Martha and Mary of Bethany (Luke 10). Augustine writes, and is followed by many others:

  [Leah's fertility] represents all the useful result of a laborious life exposed to the common vicissitudes; a life which many avoid on account of its troublesome engagements, because, although they might be able to take the lead, they are bent on study, and devote all their powers to the quiet pursuit of knowledge, in love with the beauty of Rachel. 3

This characterization, very common in the medieval period, associates the contemplative life (and therefore monastic seclusion) with people who are attracted to quietness, concentration, and intellectual study; but not attracted to the to and fro of making their way in the world at large. So monastic institutions could indeed function as a haven for "misfits", assuming they were misfits who were acceptable to the institution. (One does not generally just turn up and say, "Hey everybody, I want to be a monk", job done. Of course this is enormously variable by time, place and social status, but as a rule, one has to have an extended trial period before being accepted as a full member of the community. Unruly people might also be expelled.) Indeed, this applies not just to monasticism but to becoming a member of the clergy, at least in the case of male misfits.

I don't want to give the impression the medieval monasteries were populated entirely by docile introverts. On the contrary, many monks were not cloistered (even in theory), and maintained colorful social relations.

1. Isidore of Seville. Sententiae book 3, chapter 15, De contemplatione et actione. From Migne Patrologia Latina vol. 83: "Activa vita innocentia est operum bonorum, contempliva speculatio supernorum; illa communis multorum est, ista vero paucorum."
2. Gregory the Great. Moralia in Iob book 5, chapters 1-5.
3. Augustine. Contra Faustum book 22, chapter 56. "in qua est omnis fructus laboriosae atque inter incerta tentationum periclitantis actionis: quam plerique bono ingenio praediti studioque flagrantes, quamvis idonei regendis populis esse possint, tamen vitant propter turbulentas occupationes, et in doctrinae otium toto pectore, tamquam speciosae Rachel feruntur amplexum."


What does the Bible say Christians should or should not do on the Sabbath? Most of the Christians I know do whatever they like on Sunday: working at home, paid employment etc.

Is there any specific information in the New Testament that suggest what Christians should or should not do?

Are we supposed to obey the Ten Commandments? What does that mean for Christians?

The Ten Commandments (Deuteronomy 5 NIV) tells us to:

  12 "Observe the Sabbath day by keeping it holy, as the LORD your God
  has commanded you. 13 Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
  14 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you
  shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your
  manservant or maidservant, nor your ox, your donkey or any of your
  animals, nor the alien within your gates, so that your manservant and
  maidservant may rest, as you do.

Mark 2:27 NIV
   Then he [Jesus] said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.

The new Testament does not specify that there is anything we , as Christians, should do/not do on the Sabbath.
The Sabbath was made for us to rest. In Genesis it says that God rested on the seventh day,   we should likewise also take a day to rest.