Is the Catechism of the Catholic Church considered scripture? Is the Catechism of the Catholic Church considered scripture? Does it have the same authority as the Bible? If not, what is its place in the church? Is it considered heresy to preach or believe something that is in contradiction with the Catechism?

The immediate answer is “No, it is not scripture.” Scripture is scripture and adding to it or subtracting from it is a no-no.
As to “Does it have the same authority as the Bible?” Well, I suppose the answer is “authority for what?” For some things the authority of the Catechism is superior (certain areas of theology are only hinted at in the Bible). It can be safely said, though, that there is nothing in the Catechism which contradicts the Bible (if the Catechism is taken as a whole and in light of a Catholic understanding of Scripture).
Can you contradict the Catechism without being called a heretic? That depends on how you contradict the Catechism. On certain matters it is more definitive than others and on some matters it is 100% correct. On other matters it is a bit more theologically ambiguous. It is important to remember:

This catechism aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both faith and morals, in the light of the Second Vatican Council and the whole of the Church’s Tradition. Its principal sources are the Sacred Scriptures, the Fathers of the Church, the liturgy, and the Church’s Magisterium. It is intended to serve “as a point of reference for the catechisms or compendia that are composed in the various countries”. (CCC 11)

That word aims is important, because it is not a perfect synthesis and there are many, many finer points which can be debated and there is quite a bit of room for disagreement (you are talking about a Church which has a 1400 year old debate with its neighbor over one word). And it even testifies the the fact that it has not gotten everything perfect for all times and all people:

By design, this Catechism does not set out to provide the adaptation of doctrinal presentations and catechetical methods required by the differences of culture, age, spiritual maturity, and social and ecclesial condition among all those to whom it is addressed. Such indispensable adaptations are the responsibility of particular catechisms and, even more, of those who instruct the faithful:

Whoever teaches must become “all things to all men” (⇒ I Cor 9:22), to win everyone to Christ. . . Above all, teachers must not imagine that a single kind of soul has been entrusted to them, and that consequently it is lawful to teach and form equally all the faithful in true piety with one and the same method! Let them realize that some are in Christ as newborn babes, others as adolescents, and still others as adults in full command of their powers.... Those who are called to the ministry of preaching must suit their words to the maturity and understanding of their hearers, as they hand on the teaching of the mysteries of faith and the rules of moral conduct. (CCC 24)

All of that said, it is very difficult to contradict the Catechism without contradicting some important and definitive doctrine.
I know of one place, for example, which is phrased very poorly (in an attempt to guide pastors to a more compassionate action). My disagreement is perfectly acceptable and reasonable (as I agree with the teaching but not the admonition which goes along with it). On the other hand, if I were to disagree with the teaching behind the phraseological error I actually would be contradicting some very authoritative doctrines in the Church. That would be, at a minimum, a form of heresy.


Reformed View of Titus 2:11 and Irresistible Grace Titus 2:11 says

  For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men...

How does this fit with Irresistible Grace? From my understanding of Irresistible Grace, when God's grace that brings salvation appears to someone, they cannot resist and they are saved (whether against their will, or that the are unable to resist and their will is changed so it is their will, may not be relevant)

I have consulted ESV Global Commentary, Matthew Henry Commentary, and Calvin's commentary for the verse, but have found nothing concerning this doctrine.

How is this passage understood along with Irresistible Grace?

The defense of Titus 2:11 for the Calvinist doctrine of Irresistible Grace comes from the interpretation of the words in the verse "Grace of God."

John MacArthur,  a prominent Calvinist pastor and teacher writes this in his "John MacArthur Study Bible" commentary of Titus 2:11(NASB)-

  Titus 2:11 - "For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men.."

  2:11 ...grace of God. Not simply the divine attribute of grace,
  but Jesus Christ Himself, grace incarnate, God's supremely gracious gift to fallen mankind.

OP assumes "the grace of God" is talking about God's divine attribute of grace, which indeed is the driving factor behind the doctrine of "Irresistible Grace," but is not what this verse is talking about according to the Calvinist. Calvinists do not hold to the position that it is Christ Himself who is performing the pulling towards God, but, in the words of John Calvin, "...it is a powerful impulse of the Holy Spirit..."

In conclusion, to the Calvinist, this verse is not about Irresistible Grace at all; rather, it deals with soteriological truths.


What is the best interpretation of Matthew 24:29, from the perspective of an evangelical Christian? In the verse mentioned above, Jesus narrates:

"Immediately after the distress of those days "'the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.'

Now, every educated  evangelical is well aware of the fact that the moon does not emit its own light, and that the size of most stars is far greater than that of the Earth.

Taking note of the same, is an evangelical Christian supposed to take this verse literally or metaphorically?

In the case of the former, is there any valid explanation?

An evangelical understanding of scripture would affirm that the words of Jesus are accurately recorded in Matthew 24:29 and that they are infallible and inerrant. Therefore, evangelicals would not accept explanations like, "Jesus was wrong," or, "Matthew got it wrong."

Most Evangelicals interpret this verse metaphorically and the rest interpret it phenomenologically. The metaphorical explanation understands that the cataclysmic, universe-shaking language of Jesus is tapping into the apocalyptic/prophetic tradition of the Old Testament where it was perfectly common to use the language of "creation coming to an end" to signify real-life events that were complete reversals or "turning the world upside down."

The Evangelicals who interpret the verse phenomenologically would consider it to be describing events that would seem to an observer like the events described were happening, regardless of what was literally happening (e.g. saying "The sun rose" when really the earth just rotated revealing the sun). So the phenomenological interpretation would say something like, "it will be completely dark and the stars will seem to have disappeared (or firey star-like substances will fall to the earth!)" This kind of interpretation generally stems from evangelicals of more dispensationalist leanings who tend to think that unless there is a specific biblical indication that the verse is metaphorical it should be interpreted literally as the most faithful interpretation. In this case, the phenomenological approach is the closest to literal that is reasonable.


Unitatis Redintegratio: Analogy to describe those in "partial" or "imperfect" communion? In the Vatican II decree Unitatis Redintegratio, or "the Decree of Ecunemism," we see the phrase "imperfect" (non perfecta) used to describe "communion" (communio), as well as the typical phrase, "full communion" (communio plena) and "perfect communion" (communio perfecta). Imperfect communion would thus be equivalent to non-full or partial communion (communio non plena).
For example, in Unitatis Redintegratio, §3, it is written,

Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly condemned. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect.
In hac una et unica Dei Ecclesia iam a primordiis scissurae quaedam exortae sunt,[15] quas ut damnandas graviter vituperat Apostolus;[16] posterioribus vero saeculis ampliores natae sunt dissensiones, et Communitates haud exiguae a plena communione Ecclesiae catholicae seiunctae sunt, quandoque non sine hominum utriusque partis culpa. Qui autem nunc in talibus Communitatibus nascuntur et fide Christi imbuuntur, de separationis peccato argui nequeunt, eosque fraterna reverentia et dilectione amplectitur Ecclesia catholica. Hi enim qui in Christum credunt et baptismum rite receperunt, in quadam cum Ecclesia catholica communione, etsi non perfecta, constituuntur.

Therefore, "full communion" (communio plena) is used to describe the state of those who are in the Catholic Church, that is, in the body of Christ. They are incorporated; they are "in Christ"; they are members of his body. But, I simply do not understand how one can be in "partial" (non plena) or "imperfect" (non perfecta) communion with the body of Christ. It seems to me that you are either in Christ's body (full communion, or simply, in communion), or you are not. That is, there's no middle ground.
The Bible says that we Christians are "members of his body" (1 Cor. 12:27), and his "body" is the Church (Col. 1:18).
Question: Using the analogy of a human body to signify the body of Christ, and understanding that Christians are members (body parts) of that body (hands, legs, arms, eyes, etc.), how does one represent (by analogy) those who are in "imperfect" or "partial" communion with the Church, the body of Christ?

Many Catholics, including Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) find the Mystical Body image to be problematic when discussing such ecumenical issues as you reference here.  This is why Ratzinger pushed for the dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium to use "People of God" rather than "Body of Christ" in this ecumenical context.  An understanding of the "People of God" was a main topic of Ratzinger's doctoral dissertation.

  Over the years Ratzinger has had a great deal to say about the dogmatic constitution on the Church. In his earliest observations he contends that it did well to subordinate the image of Mystical Body to that of People of God. The Mystical Body paradigm, much in favor under Pius XII, makes it all but impossible to give any ecclesial status to non-Catholics and leads to a false identification of the Church with Christ her Lord. The image of People of God, he contends, is more biblical; it gives scope for recognizing the sins of the Church, and it indicates that the Church is still on pilgrimage under the sign of hope. (Avery Cardinal Dulles, From Ratzinger to Benedict)

This is a common understanding.  Although certain aspects of his ecclesiology may have changed in his later years, the tension between the Mystical Body image and any positive ecclesial status for non-Catholics seems to have remained.


What would the Catholic Church's hierarchy look like without the Vatican? What does the Roman Catholic Church teach would happen if something catastrophic (God forbid!) Destroyed the entire city of Rome, as well as the Vatican city-state?

As an example - what would happen if an hydrogen bomb was detonated in the Colosseum of Rome, effectively wiping out the entire Roman Curia?

How would this effect the universal church as a whole?

Who would be in charge?

My curiosity stems from my study of ecclesiology. The Catholic Church teaches that the Church is not whole or complete without the Pope and the Vatican.

Again, I do not wish this to happen at all!

This is ecclesiastical theoretical contemplation.

Most of the cardinals don't live (most of the time) in the neighborhood of the Vatican. So, probably, once the Church as a whole got over the shock, they'd convene the college of cardinals in some appropriate place and elect a new Pope.

Now if (as Caleb hypothesizes in his comment) the college of cardinals were largely or entirely wiped out as well, then we'd probably need to appoint new cardinals. Typically, of course, this is reserved for the Pope; but in this case we'd obviously have to work in a new way.  One might consider the Code of Canon Law:

  Can. [i.e. Canon] 335. When the Roman See is vacant or entirely impeded, nothing is to be altered in the governance of the universal Church; the special laws issued for these circumstances, however, are to be observed.
  Can. 336 The college of bishops, whose head is the Supreme Pontiff and whose members are bishops by virtue of sacramental consecration and hierarchical communion with the head and members of the college and in which the apostolic body continues, together with its head and never without this head, is also the subject of supreme and full power offer [sic, i.e. "over"] the universal Church.

Now it's arguable whether this is enough to allow the college of bishops to appoint cardinals if the see is vacant and there are none; but I'm guessing that it probably is.

It's highly unlikely that all the cardinals would be in Rome at once; I'm not sure that they always are even for a conclave. If there are any cardinals at all left, the college of bishops might only have to indicate that the restriction on voting for cardinals over the age of 80 has been lifted; then a new conclave can be called. If there are no cardinals left at all, then as I said I think you could use Canons 335 and 336, or something similar, to argue that the college of bishops must in these extraordinary circumstances receive the ability sede vacante to appoint new cardinals. From there the process would proceed as usual.

A council of bishops might be needed to determine where the Holy See would be, but the new Pope would be able to appoint new heads of the various congregations and the other structures of the Holy See. It would certainly be a great blow to the Church, but the Church has a widely dispersed power structure and would be able to pick itself up fairly easily, I think.

One other note: I'm not familiar with the governance of the Eastern Catholic Churches, nor with the canon law regarding them, so I've left them out; but presumably their patriarchs would not have been affected by a catastrophe such as you imagine. Unless you want to specify that there were quite a number of simultaneous catastrophes in different places.


Universalism in the Orthodox Church? Is this true that in the Orthodox Church there are still two quite opposite views existing, one of which holds that everybody will sooner or later be delivered by God from the hell, and another one stating that those who are not saved will be tormented in the hell forever?

Yes and no. In historical Christianity, the term for universal salvation is apocatastasis. Apocatastasis refers to the restoration of all things to their original state, which includes the notion of universal reconciliation (even going so far as to insist that Satan himself will eventually be reconciled to God). The word appears in Acts 3:21.

  "Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of
  refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ
  appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time [(this is actually
  plural in the Greek: 'times')] for restoring [(apocatastasis)] all the things about
  which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago" (Acts 3:19-21).

Since this isn't the Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange, I won't get too crazy on the exegesis of this passage but it must be noted that there is an alternate way to translate it. The word "things" is implied in πάντων in the above translation, but the relative pronoun (ὧν) could be referring to 'of times' (χρόνων). The argument boils down to whether there will be a restoration "of all the things about which God spoke" (as rendered in the above translation), or if there will be a restoration "of all the times about which God spoke." This alternate translation may be responsible for some of the early speculation about apocatastasis.

1 Corinthians 15:28 has also historically been used as a justification for apocatastasis:

  "When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also
  be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that
  God may be all in all."

Scholars are still divided on where this teaching originated, most pointing the finger at Origen. It is debated whether or not Origen taught apocatastasis and whether this even implied universal salvation. It was certainly a very common belief among many early Church fathers, however. Origen is said to have been posthumously condemned at the 5th ecumenical council along with his belief in apocatastasis as universal salvation. Therefore it is commonly taught that the official teaching of the Christian Church is that universal salvation is heretical. However, many scholars have questioned whether apocatastasis was actually condemned. Origen was also condemned for a number of beliefs he held that were Platonic (such as the preexistence of souls, a heterodox Christology, animistic beliefs, etc.). Scholars have debated whether it was the Platonic foundations that he mixed with apocatastasis that were rejected or the entirety of the doctrine itself. There is significant evidence that suggests that many have misunderstood what was specifically denounced in the 5th council.

The idea as presented by Origen is that since God will be "all in all," then in eternity there will be no place that God is not. Since "God is love" (1 John 4:8), wrath is not an eternal attribute of God but rather how we experience His love without being pure in heart / righteous. Therefore hell is not viewed as conscious torment inflicted intentionally by God as punishment nor as a withdrawal of God's presence, but rather as the experience of the unfiltered love of God. For those who have been made righteous, this is a very positive experience. For those who have chosen to reject His love, it is like a consuming fire that causes them suffering. Origen taught that this fire was purifying and that eventually no one would hold out against God's love. Origen believed that all would eventually be reconciled to God.

Some have stated this by using the analogy of wind: God's love is like wind constantly blowing in one direction. When we walk in His will, the wind has our back and carries us along. But when we go against His will, we walk against the wind and experience His love as wrath. Thus God is always continually loving, but we are the ones who don't know what true love is. This can even be observed in human relationships: consider a loved one who hates a family member. Let's say that Helga is the mean and bitter loved one and Cindy is the kind relative. Helga intentionally buys Cindy a mean gift on Christmas - something that Cindy finds offensive. Cindy knows that Helga will be mean but chooses to love her anyways and purchases a thoughtful gift for her. When Helga opens the loving gift from Cindy, she throws it on the floor in anger and shouts, "You did this on purpose!" Perhaps this is even the key to understanding how God's love can be like "heaping burning coals on someone's head" (Proverbs 25:21-22; Romans 12:20). Many Eastern Orthodox believers view God's love in this manner. Many in our broken culture experience true love as a form of suffering. Orthodox Christians believe that eternity will be no different, since God is always love. This is basically the Orthodox doctrine of 'hell' in a simplified (albeit incomplete) way.

But what about universal salvation? It may be true that people will experience God's love as suffering, but will this experience be eternal? Do Orthodox Christians believe that all will be saved?

We must also consider another great saint who taught apocatastasis but was not condemned for it: St. Gregory of Nyssa. St. Gregory of Nyssa was one of the Cappadocian fathers who repudiated the Platonic teachings of both Irenaeus and Origen. Yet he never repudiated the teaching of apocatastasis, although he did modify it slightly. Since St. Gregory of Nyssa was never condemned as a heretic nor any of his teachings, it is often thought that perhaps apocatastasis is not heretical, but rather the way that Origen had presented it and infused it with Platonism was the problem (technically neo-Platonism for those philosophy/history buffs reading this). Add to this the fact that universalism may not have even been specifically addressed in the 5th ecumenical council and there is a valid argument that this view may not have been considered heretical by the early Church (cf. this, this, and this).

These beliefs can be seen throughout both Eastern and Western Christians through the medieval period, all the way up until the Reformation in the West. This hope for an eventual universal reconciliation has continued in much of Eastern Christianity - but not in any dogmatic way (this would be counter to the Orthodox approach to theology, which is a discussion for another time).

Of course you can find Orthodox Christians who vehemently support either extreme, but you can also undoubtedly find Universalists within mainline conservative Protestant denominations as well. The presence of alternate opinions does not imply agreement from all those within a tradition. There are also many underlying related concepts that I do not have time to sufficiently address, such as the notion that heaven and hell are 'places' that exist within space and time, the apophatic approach to theology, and much more.

The best way to summarize the position of the Eastern Orthodox Church is perhaps to say that they hold out hope for the eventual reconciliation of all to God. Thus it would be heretical to say that all will be saved, but it is legitimate to hope that all may be saved.

Here is a scholarly article tracing Patristic teachings on apocatastasis.


What is the Biblical basis for multiple judgments after death? I recently heard a talk on the notion of "multiple judgments"; the idea is one is initially judged simply on the fact of their salvation - did that person put their life in Christ's hands and accept Him as savior. If yes, that person is accepted into Heaven. If no, that person is cast off.

Then, I heard of more judgments after this - essentially, being judged on what one "accomplished" based on what they had available. This seems to contradict the idea in Ephesians 2:8 of faith saving someone, not works:

  For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God

There may have been more judgments that I heard, but I was so perplexed by this and didn't recall anything else.

My question is: Besides the initial judgement of salvation, what is the Biblical basis for multiple judgments, and are those judgments based on "merit" or "good works"?

It sounds like you're referring to the White Throne Judgment and the Bema Seat Judgment, which are typically believed to be different judgments by Evangelical Protestants.

The White Throne Judgment is described in Revelation 20:11-15.  This, to the traditions that believe in the two judgments, is the judgment that everyone faces, where you are judged to be innocent or guilty; whether you will be cast into the eternal lake of fire, or accepted into Heaven.

  Revelation 11-15: (KJV) 11 ¶ And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled
  away; and there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead,
  small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and
  another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were
  judged out of those things which were written in the books, according
  to their works. 13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and
  death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were
  judged every man according to their works. 14 And death and hell were
  cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And whosoever
  was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of
  fire.

The Bema Seat Judgment, on the other hand, is believed to be the judgment of rewards to those who are saved, who have in essence, "made it through" the White Throne judgment.  It's based on several scriptures scattered throughout the Bible.

There's an article that describes it here, with Scripture references.  The page has a copyright notice, so I won't copy sections of it, rather a short summary follows:

Several passages in Scripture indicate that we will receive rewards for faithful service.
 - 1 Thessalonians 2:19-20
 - Revelation 22:12
 - Romans 14:10-11
 - 1 Corinthians 3:11-15
 - 2 Corinthians. 5:9-10
 - 1 John 2:28
 - Revelation 3:11-12

Both Romans 14:10 and 2 Corinthians 5:9 reference a "judgment seat", which is a translation of the Greek word "Bema".  There are arguments from some circles that this term has connotations of rewards coming to athletes competing for a prize.  The article I referenced above states it this way.  Others argue that these explanations are extra-Biblical and contradictory.

Whether or not there are separate judgments is something that's been debated for centuries.  I won't put my own personal beliefs here, as they are flavored heavily by the doctrines I've been immersed in.

However, I will say that from an evangelical protestant perspective, the doctrine  of two separate judgments does reconcile otherwise contradictory passages.

First, the doctrine of salvation by faith alone apart from works would indicate that our good works do absolutely nothing to earn us salvation. (The White Throne Judgment)
Second, we are told in various places in Scripture that we will be judged by our works, and will be rewarded.  If the core doctrine of salvation by faith alone, apart from works is true, then these judgments and rewards must be something other than salvation.

There is the promise of crowns in Heaven (Rev. 3:11, Matt. 6:2, Rev. 4:4)
There is the promise of Heavenly treasure (Matt. 6:20, 1 Pet. 1:4)
There are promises of Responsibility, Authority, and inheritance of God's possessions. (Matt. 19:28; 24:45-47; 25:21, 23; Lk. 19:17-19; 22:29-30; Rev. 2:26).

As to whether the doctrine of two judgments is Biblical depends on the definition of "Biblical".  Scripture does not come out and state directly that there are two judgments, so in that regard, it might be considered "extra-Biblical".  On the other hand, there is a bit of Biblical support for the doctrine.  In that regards, it's as Biblical as the doctrine of the Trinity, and other doctrines not explicitly stated in Scripture.


Origin of La Madonna Del Gatto Someone purchased a copy of "The Christmas Cat" by MaryAnn MacDonald for my children. At the end of this fictional book depicting a cat which soothes a colicky baby Jesus and helps Jesus (and his family) escape to Egypt without being detected by Herod's guards by keeping him calm, the author claims in the author's note that this story has a basis in legend. The author writes,

  Leonardo da Vinci loved to draw La Madonna del Gatto, or the Madonna of the Cat. He made many drawings of her in 1480 and 1481. In the drawings, the chubby child Jesus is depicted holding, stroking, and playing with a cat.

  Legend tells about a cat living in the stable in Bethlehem who purred Jesus to sleep the night he was born.

Included with this author's note is the following drawing by Da Vinci

What is the origin of this uncited legend? What is the earliest literary or pictographic representation of Jesus with a cat in Bethlehem?

What are the origins of La Madonna Del Gatto?

To put it in a nutshell, we may never know.

  Q: Any information on "gatta della Madonna" – a legend that at the time of the birth of Christ, a cat in the manger gave birth to a litter of kittens and was the inspiration for Giulio Romano's painting, Madonna della Gatta – will be greatly appreciated.

  A: We found in our holdings a Holy Family by Giulio Romano which depicts Mary, Saint Elizabeth or Ann, St. John and Jesus, with Joseph in the background. The painting also features a cat in the lower right corner. It may not be the one you are referring to, or is it? There is another representation of the Holy Family by Baroccio called The Madonna del Gatto. The cat is being pointed to by the mother who shows the little animal to her son, Jesus. Saint John is part of the holy company. In both cases we are not dealing with an explicit reference to the nativity scene. Jesus is now a toddler and the whole scene reflects the family life in Nazareth.

  The classical creche traditions do not know of the presence of cats, but there may be exceptions. We also have studies by Leonardo da Vinci for a Virgin and Child with a kitten in the British Museum. However, there exits a legend – somewhat nebulous and farfetched – about the presence not only of a cat and her kittens beneath the manger but also of a whole menagerie. The so-called Gospel of the Holy Twelve by G. J. Ouseley (1923) which claims to be "a translation of an early Christian document preserved in one of the Buddhist monasteries in Thibet" (see: M. Oldfield Howey, The Cat in the Mysteries of Religion and Magic, NY 1956) says the following:

  "And there were in the same cave an ox and a horse and an ass, and a sheep, and beneath the manger was a cat with her little ones, and there were doves also, overhead, and each had its mate after its kind, the male with the female. Thus it came to pass that he was born in the midst of the animals which, through the redemption of man from ignorance and selfishness, he came to redeem from their sufferings, by the manifestation of the sons and the daughters of God."

  It remains a puzzling fact that the traditional sources of iconographical motifs remain silent. This applies to the apocryphal gospels, the classical Marian legends of the West, even the Physiologus, one of the most popular and widely read books of the Middle Ages which inspired most of the bestiaries, meaning books dealing with anecdotes, legends and illustrations of known and mythic animals. There is a hunch that should be further pursued. The cat has an important place in Chaldean and Egyptian magism. The cat is seen in close symbolic relationship with the Goddess Isis. It is suggested that the English word "Puss" is derived from "Pasht," a form of the Egyptian Isis. Thus, it would be interesting to have a closer look at the Coptic Marian legends influenced by Egyptian culture and milieu. – Answered by Father Johann Roten, S.M. (Gatta della Madonna)


Is 'Non-Catholic Non-Orthodox Modern Western Denomination' an ok definition of Protestant? One meaning of the term "Protestant" is "a church drawing its roots from the Reformation and the denominations of the Reformers in particular".  I have also seen the term extensively used to mean "a modern non-Catholic non-Orthodox western denomination" with 'modern' meaning dating back no earlier than roughly the time of the Reformation and 'western' generally meaning embracing western scholasticism and enlightenment thinking in general.  I have recently been told that the latter meaning is "just wrong".  Is the latter definition 'wrong' in some fundamental way and what reasons are there to use or avoid using it?  If it is wrong, what term (not "modern non-Catholic non-Orthodox western denomination" please, that's just way too long) would be better for this broader usage?

Your question is a good one, but it is slightly misguided.  You are seeking a precise definition for a term which does not have one.  The word Protestant can mean different things depending on the context in which it is used.  When used in a historical context, it may be used to strictly refer to those involved in the Reformation and to the churches that they directly founded.  However, it is also perfectly legitimate and acceptable to use the term Protestant to refer to any Christians or Churches that espouse the same principles as the original Protestant reformers.

The biggest commonality among Protestants is that they denounce the universal authority of the Papacy.  Beyond that, the term Protestant is much like the term Christian.  It essentially applies to anyone who chooses to apply it to themselves.  In that sense, I do think that you were using the term appropriately, as long as you only intended it in a loose way.  It would be wrong to correct someone's use of the term by suggesting that the term can only legitimately be used in a historically precise way.


What is the origin of "cruciform theodicy"? The philosophical Problem of evil concerns the existence of evil, specifically how it can be that evil exists in the world even though God is said to be both omnipotent (all powerful) and omnibenevolent (all good). If God was omnibenevolent but not omnipotent, then he may not be able to dispose of evil, or if he was omnipotent but not omnibenevolent he may not want to. But Christianity teaches that he is both, leading to the tricky conclusion that God should be both able to eliminate evil and desire to do so, and yet he has not. This is the Problem of evil, and there have been many theodicies (defences of God) proposed over the ages.

The Wikipedia page on the problem of evil cites Dietrich Bonhoeffer as the originator of "cruciform theodicy" when he wrote this in 1944:

  Only the suffering God can help.

But were there previous Christian writers who claimed that Christ's suffering on the Cross contains the answer to the problem of evil? What is the origin of cruciform theodicy?

Note: this question is not asking about the problem sin and evil as they pertain to us, of how we can be forgiven, saved, and restored to perfection. If your answer does not directly discuss the attributes of God it may not be a valid answer.

Here is an early writing which may have been part of what influenced Bonhoeffer in the direction of cruciform theodicy.  It comes as part of a letter from Ambrose of Milan to the Christian congregation at Vercellae in 396 AD.  In staunch opposition to Epicurean Philosophy (from whence comes the Problem of Evil in it's original formulation) Ambrose points out that pleasure cannot reinstate us to Paradise because pleasure alone has caused us to lose it.

  But Holy Scripture refutes this, for it teaches us that pleasure was suggested to Adam and Eve by the craft and enticements of the serpent. Since, indeed, the serpent itself is pleasure, and therefore the passions of pleasure are various and slippery, and as it were infected with the poison of corruptions, it is certain then that Adam, being deceived by the desire of pleasure, fell away from the commandment of God and from the enjoyment of grace. How then can pleasure recall us to paradise, seeing that it alone deprived us of it?

If pleasure cannot avail us of it, perhaps the unspoken opposite of suffering is implied as the cure.


What is the significance of changing the names of Abram to Abraham and Sarai to Sarah? I would briefly reconstruct from Genesis, the circumstances leading to this change in names.

In the very beginning of His conversation with Abram, God says to Abram:

Gen: 12:2  (NET)

  Then I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you, and I will make your name great, so that you will exemplify divine blessing.

At this time he was 75 years old and God tells him that his descendent would be numerous (Gen.13:16).  But because of his advancing age, Abram asks God that how this can be, when he continues to be childless and whether He means that Eliezer of Damascus would the heir for this to come true. (Gen.15:2-3).  In verse Gen. 15:4 God tells Abram that a son born from his own body would be the heir.

But then possibly due to lack of faith in God’s promise, Sarai did not have patience to remain trusted in God and gave their salve girl Hagar to Abram(Gen. 16:2). We can figure out that Ishmael was born because Abraham and Sarah did not trust God to fulfil his promise that their descendants would be from both of them.

Abram was 86 years of old when Hagar gave birth to Ishmael. (Gen.16.16). Thereafter there  is no record in the Bible concerning the 13 years of Abram’s life following the birth of Ishmael. After 13 years, when Abraham reaches 99 years of age God instructs Abraham to walk blameless before Him:

Gen. 17:1-2  (NET)

  When Abram was 99 years old, the Lord appeared to him and said, “I am the sovereign God. Walk before me and be blameless.Then I will confirm my covenant between me and you, and I will give you a multitude of descendants.”

Here God’s rebuke appears to indicate that during these 13 years, Abram did not walk before God, and as a result, his life was full of blame. Also notice that God re-introduces himself as “God almighty.” God puts a condition to Abram, saying walk before me blameless and only then He will “confirm” His covenant between Him and Abram. Here we see that earlier covenant was not valid for those 13 years and God wants to reconfirm the same again. So God again renews His covenant with Abram:

Gen. 17:4-6  (NET)

  “As for me, this is my covenant with you: You will be the father of a multitude of nations. No longer will your name be Abram. Instead, your name will be Abraham because I will make you the father of a multitude of nations. I will make you extremely fruitful. I will make nations of you, and kings will descend from you.

Note here that in Gen. 12:2 it is only one great nation, whereas in Gen 17.4-5 God talks about multitude of nations. Here, God changes the name of Abram to Abraham and Sarai to Sarah. So Abram (Noble Father) becomes Abraham (Father of many) and Sarai, (Princess) becomes Sarah(Mother of Nations).

What is the significance of changing their names? What does it symbolize? Is there any relation of this change to the future coming of messiah and consequently to Multitude of nations (Christianity)?

Abram to Abraham
God had promised Abram that he would have a son and that it would be through his wife Sarai.  Abram's name means "Exalted Father", which may have proven to be an embarrassment as he aged without children.  This fits with God's promise, but he didn't receive that name from God but from his father.
God gives him the name "Abraham", which means "father of many".  This reinforces God's promise to Abraham that he would not only have a son through Sarai, but also that he would be the father of many nations.  This is true through Ishmael, Isaac, and the sons of Keturah--the wife he took after Sarah died.
Sarai to Sarah
As for Sarai changing to Sarah, the difference is more subtle, being from "princess" to "princess of many".  This does not apparently refer to many nations per se, but to many people.  This is significant, because Sarah was the mother of one nation, while Abraham was the father of many nations.  Still, the name comes from God and is a sign of the promise God had made to her.
Abram's Call to Be Blameless
It is interesting that Abram receives a call to walk righteously.  Previously, Adam was created in the image of God and Noah was found to be a righteous man, blameless among the people of his day.  Abraham, however, did not initially measure up to that standard.  He lied about his wife on more than one occasion.
However, God had already blessed Abram in many ways by now, so he had the assurance that God was with him.  He had yet to perhaps surrender fully to God, though.  It was not that he was full of blame, but was not blameless either.  Thus, Abraham, whom God had chosen to be the recipient of a new covenant through which God would reveal Himself to the world, was called to holy living prior to God's fulfillment of the promise.
New Name for Believers
The implication is that we all receive "names" from the world--the rich kid, the smart kid, the fat kid, the slow kid, the jock.  However, God has a promise for our lives as well, and His name for us is different.  It expresses our personal relationship with God and the high value He places on us.

For I know the plans that I have for you,’ declares the Lord, ‘plans for welfare and not for calamity to give you a future and a hope.  Jeremiah 29:11 NAS
Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who is victorious, I will give some of the hidden manna. I will also give that person a white stone with a new name written on it, known only to the one who receives it.  Revelation 2:17 NIV


What did early Christians say about apostolic succession? Did early Christian writers teach apostolic succession or reject it? How do their teachings on this topic compare with contemporary and significant historical understandings of apostolic succession?

To answer the question, no the early church did not reject "apostolic succession".  But to understand the answer, it is necessary to define exactly what the question is; what precisely is "apostolic succession"?  For the early church, it meant "teach the same as apostles".  It did not mean, what it came to be later redefined as, some sort of sacerdotal succession.

CLASSIC APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION

The classic (earliest) definition of apostolic succession was to "teach the same" as apostles.  Thus you might find apostolic succession in a church from Judea to Great Britain to India; all teaching the same as the apostles.  It was the binding to "the faith once delivered".

  It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about
  Irenaeus AH Book III, III, 1 (bold mine)

In other words, Irenaeus is contrasting the false teachers who taught things unknown with and apart from what apostolic churches were teaching, which was handed down in succession.  There was no room for innovation or tradition.

  [Polycarp] departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true.
  -ibid, 4

Again, the definition of "apostolic succession" is detailed as handing down that truth which was learned from apostles.  Those teachings alone are true.

REDEFINED APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION

The Catholic Church (CC) now defines apostolic succession in this way.

  1399 The Eastern churches that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church celebrate the Eucharist with great love. "These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments, above all - by apostolic succession - the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy." A certain communion in sacris, and so in the Eucharist, "given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged.
  -Catechism CC-

In other words, even though Catholics and Orthodox differ on major theological doctrines, CC may still define itself and Orthodox as having "apostolic succession" by virtue of a claim to a type of sacerdotal priesthood.

There's no need to delve into which denomination accurately teaches what the apostles taught because the point is made; that is, "apostolic succession" has been redefined from "teach the same as apostles" to having some type of "physical continuity as priests".

SUMMARY

  Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church,—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, [looking upon them] either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth.
  Irenaeus Book IV, XXVI, 2

Somewhere along the historic line, the shift was made from adhere to those who teach the same apostolic truth to obey your priest and bishop who can offer a continuous sacrifice for you.

To have "apostolic succession" as it was defined and practiced in the earliest Christian years, one simply must "teach the same" as apostles.


Is foot washing a form of sin cleansing? I'm currently studying John 13:1-20.  I go to a church where they believe that foot washing is an ordinance similar to baptism and the Lord's supper.  I personally disagree and believe that as Jesus said, v.15 (ESV)

For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I
have done to you.

I believe that Jesus is demonstrating that if the greatest (being Jesus) is willing to serve the lowliest of tasks, we too should be willing to serve one another in humility. So I understand that as acts of kindness and service (which can obviously take many forms).
Where I'm really struggling from an exegetical perspective is in v10 which says

Jesus said to him, “The one who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet, but is completely clean.

My assumption is that Jesus meant by you are already completely clean, is that by faith in Christ they have been cleansed of all sin, and have transferred from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of light.
So my question finally is, what connection does the symbol of washing only the feet have to do with the cleansing of the overall body.  If the cleansing of the body is the forgiveness of sin by grace through faith, then what does the washing of the feet symbolically represent, and how does that link back to forgiveness of sin? I hope that makes sense.  If you need any clarifications please let me know.

The story of Jesus washing the feet of Peter and the other disciples has two related meanings.
When Jesus washes Peter's feet, Peter objects, since he believes Jesus should not be doing such a lowly task for him. Jesus response tells Peter that this washing is an integral part of Jesus and Peter's relationship and so Peter enthusiastically accepts not just the foot washing but as much washing as Jesus wants to give him.
There is clearly an element here in which Jesus is foreshadowing that he is about to perform an even more lowly task for Peter (and the others, and us) that of dying on the cross for our sins.
Jesus then explains the message that he wants the disciples (and hence us) to take away which is that since he will perform not just the symbolic lowly act of foot washing, but also the ultimate lowly act of dying, for us, we should also serve one another.
When we as Christians re-perform the symbolic foot washing act we are reminding ourselves of this. However unlike Jesus our actions do not cleanse others from sin, so that part of the initial story is not part of the reenactment. Our actions merely teach and remind us of the call to mutual service and submission.


How are the Decretive, Preceptive, and Permissive wills of God defined? I've heard people talk about the Decretive, the Preceptive, and the Permissive wills of God, but I don't entirely understand them. What do they mean and what makes them distinct from each other?

The decretive will of God is where God decrees what definitely will happen. For example, if God decrees that Jesus Christ will return in judgment, then that will definitely happen.
The preceptive will of God is where God gives us a precept. This is how we see what God desires us to do. For example, all of the Ten Commandments show us the preceptive will of God. The difference is that while God tells us to obey the Ten Commandments, He doesn't decree that we will definitely obey them, thus "permitting" our disobedience.
Charles Hodge, in his Systematic Theology, says the following:

The decretive will of God concerns his purposes, and relates to the futurition of events. The preceptive will relates to the rule of duty for his rational creatures. He decrees whatever he purposes to effect or to permit. He prescribes, according to his own will, what his creatures should do, or abstain from doing. The decretive and preceptive will of God can never be in conflict. God never decrees to do, or to cause others to do, what He forbids. He may, as we see He does, decree to permit what He forbids. He permits men to sin, although sin is forbidden. This is more scholastically expressed by the theologians by saying, A positive decretive will cannot consist with a negative preceptive will; i.e., God cannot decree to make men sin. But a negative decretive will may consist with an affirmative preceptive will; e.g., God may command men to repent and believe, and yet, for wise reasons, abstain from giving them repentance.

Preceptive will, permissive will, and passive will are synonymous. Decretive will, sovereign will, and active will are synonymous.
The Westminster Shorter Catechism questions and answers 7 and 39 say the following:

Q. 7. What are the decrees of God?
A. The decrees of God are, his eternal purpose, according to the counsel of his will, whereby, for his own glory, he hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass
Q. 39. What is the duty which God requireth of man?
A. The duty which God requireth of man, is obedience to his revealed will.

Q&A 7 describes the decretive will of God. Q&A 39 describes the preceptive will of God (more or less).
It is worth noting that in Reformed theology, there is only one will of God. However, the word "will" has two meanings, and thus there is the will of God in the definition of will whereby God ordains something and causes it to come to pass, and the will of God in the definition of will whereby God requires and commands something of mankind.


How do Protestants interpret Malachi 1:11 and Isaiah 66:20-21? For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same
  My name shall be great among the Gentiles;

  And in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering:
  For my name shall be great among the heathen, Saith the Lord of hosts.

  Malachi 1:11 (KJV)

I have been looking for Protestant explanation of this and how it is fulfilled in Christ.  The only one that I have found suggests that the incense that is offered to God represents prayers and the pure offering is also those prayers.  My problem with this interpretation is the Hebrew.  It clearly suggests two distinct offerings, incense and a pure offering.  Some translations suggest it as a grain offering but the Hebrew text does not support that.

Supporting this offering which is sacrificial in nature is Isaiah 66:21 (KJV), which must be read in the context of the rest of Isaiah 66.

  And they shall bring all your brethren for an offering unto the LORD out of all nations upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and upon mules, and upon swift beasts, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, saith the LORD, as the children of Israel bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the LORD.

Are the Levites something other than ministerial priests who make sacrificial offering to the Lord for the people?

What is the pure offering if not the offering of Christ on the Cross re-presented daily all over the world in the Catholic Church?  What is the Protestant version?  What is the reference to Priests and Levites if not that of the "priesthood of believers" and "a sacrificial ministerial priesthood" (Catholic Clergy) taken for the first time after the Cross--from outside the Jewish Rabbinical traditions?

How do Protestants say these prophecies have been fulfilled in their churches?

Unlike in Catholicism, there is no unified and singular Protestant body of doctrine, so a “Protestant answer” to your question cannot be given. I can, however, provide an answer given by the popular Protestant theologian, scholar, and commentator Matthew Henry who in his commentary of Malachi 1, says:

  In these verses, they are charged with ingratitude, in that they were not duly sensible of God’s distinguishing goodness to them; and such a charge as this may well be called a burden, for it is a heavy one. God asserts the great kindness he had, and had often expressed, for them (Mal. 1:2): I have loved you, saith the Lord. Thus abruptly does the sermon begin, as if God intended, whatever reproofs should be given them, to reconcile them to his love, and to take care that they should still have good thoughts of him. As many as I love I rebuke and chasten. Thus kindly does the sermon begin. God will have his people satisfied that he loves them and is ever mindful of his love.

Malachi prophesied to the Priests of Israel. The priesthood of the Levites is important; it is a type that precedes the priesthood of the Church in Messiah, the priestly nation. Where the priesthood of the Levites was from patronage and has ended, the priesthood of the Church is from God and lasts forever. As in all things, the priesthood according to the law has passed away, and the priesthood that comes by faith endures, in the same way that Messiah is not a priest in the order of Levi, as he is not a descendant of Levi but of Judah and indeed a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek. The Lord was rebuking the priests for the disdain with which they carried out their duties that God gave them as a blessing to them; it was their allotted inheritance.

  They question his love, and diminish the instances of it, and seem to quarrel with him for telling them of it: Yet you say, Wherein hast thou loved us? As God traces up all his favours to them to the fountain, which was his love, so he traces up all their sins against him to the fountain, which was their contempt of his love. Instead of acknowledging his kindness, and studying what they shall render, they scorn to own that they have been beholden to him, challenge him to produce proofs of his love that are material, and think and speak very slightly of the instances they have had of his kindness, as if they were so few, so small, as not to be worth taking notice of, and no more than what they had sufficiently made returns for, or at least than he had sufficiently balanced with instances of his wrath.

Henry continues to make his point, which is what I believe you are after here:

  He declares his resolution both to secure the glory of his own name and to reckon with those who profane it. Those who put contempt upon God and religion, and think to run down sacred things, let them know that they shall not gain their point. God will magnify his law and make it honourable, though they [the priests to whom Malachi prophesies] vilify it and make it contemptible; for (Mal. 1:11) from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles.

And so The Lord in this prophecy contrasts the contentious priests who are sons of Abraham with the Church, that is the Church of Messiah that is later to come, who are not even sons of Abraham by birth and will yet honor him in the way the he desires. This is how the prophecy is fulfilled in Christ. Malachi is saying to the Levitical priests who will not carry out their allotted inheritance that the Church of Messiah, made up of all the nations, will be faithful in theirs.


What is the Catholic argument against scripture alone? What is the clear argument against scripture alone?
Much the same way as in Judaism you have  the Talmud and so on as a comment on the scripture or the Torah. The understanding of scripture alone you hear more in the Protestant church.

What is the Catholic church  argument against scripture alone?

Before giving my answer, I note that a very similar question already exists:

What is the basis for not believing sola scriptura?

To start, not everything which was revealed by God was transmitted in writing by the Apostles, at least definitively not by Paul:

  "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you
  were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter."
  (2 Thess 2:15)

  "Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from
  me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus." (2 Tim 1:13)

  "and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses
  entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." (2 Tim
  2:2)

The objection to sola scriptura from the three above passages could be ingeniously countered by positing that any knowledge that Paul transmitted only orally and which needed to be transmitted to future generations was put in writing by some other NT author, be it John, Peter, James, Jude, or Luke in Acts. I don't think any sola scriptura defender would actually resort to such convoluted argument, but even if they did, they'd still need to explain away this other passage from Paul:

  "the Church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth."
  (1 Tim 3:15)

In this passage, "support", rendered alternatively as "foundation", "bulwark" or "buttress", translates "hedraióma", a word used only once in the NT and nowhere else. To note, the usual word for "foundation" is "themelios", used in several places by Paul to refer to:

Jesus Christ (1 Cor 3:10-12),
the apostles and prophets (Eph 2:20), "Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone (akrogóniaios)" in this case, and
those who belong to God, i.e. the Church: "God's firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: "The Lord knows those who are his,"" (2 Tim 2:19).

The relationship between Jesus, the apostles and the whole of the Church in these passages with "foundation"/"themelios" mirrors the relationship between Jesus, Peter and the totality of the faithful in four passages with "rock" or "stone", namely those where:

Paul and Peter call Jesus "the cornerstone", i.e. Eph 2:20 and 1 Pe 2:6-7 respectively, the latter using both "akrogóniaios" and "kephale gonias",
Jesus tells Simon: "you are Rock (Kepha/Petros), and upon this rock (kepha/petra) I will build my church" (Mt 16:18), and
Peter says that the faithful "as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house" (1 Pe 2:5).

The teaching from either set of passages is clear:

Jesus is the ultimate foundation, the cornerstone, and it is so by Himself, by nature.
Peter and the apostles are foundation by the grace of Christ, by participation in his firmness.
The whole Church, "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets" (Eph 2:20), is also foundation and support by participation.

The point is that it is the Church which is "the pillar and support of the truth", not Scripture. This statement, together with the quoted Pauline exhortations to hold to the traditions received orally from him, show clearly that the position of sola scriptura is against Scripture.

Last but not least, there is the canon question, as no Bible book contains a list of all Bible books.


How did scripture get the name bible? A man came to my home and said that scriptures got the name bible from a prostitution city called Byblos near Tyre. He said that Byblos means "city of bastards" and it was deceptively put on the bible by some as mockery because Mary was with child without a human husband. Here is what I found from Wikipedia

  The Phoenician city, known to the Greeks as Býblos (Βύβλος) and to the
  Romans as Byblus, was important for their import of papyrus from
  Egypt.[10] **The English word "Bible", ultimately deriving from the
  Greek words bíblos (βίβλος) and biblíon (βιβλίον), may have originated
  with the Greeks' mispronunciation of the city or its Egyptian export.

Is there any truth in this? Is there any sect of Christians who believe this? How did scripture get the name bible?

See: What Does "Bible" Mean and How Did it Get That Name?

Origin of the word:

  The word Bible itself is simply a transliteration of the Greek word
  bíblos (βίβλος), meaning "book." So the Bible is, quite simply, The
  Book. However, take a step further back and the same Greek word also
  means "scroll" or "parchment." Of course, the first words of Scripture
  would have been written on parchment, and then copied to scrolls, then
  those scrolls would be copied and distributed and so on.

  It is thought the word Biblos itself is likely taken from an ancient
  seaport city named Byblos. Located in modern-day Lebanon, Byblos was a
  Phoenician port city known for its export and trade of papyrus.
  Because of this association, the Greeks likely took the name of this
  city and adapted it to create their word for book.

Application to the Scriptures, Old and New Testament:

  The collection of these writings, including the New Testament, were
  first called the Bible somewhere around the fourth century in the
  writings of John Chrysostom. Chrysostom first refers to the Old and
  New Testament together as ta biblia (the books), the Latin form of
  biblos. It was also around this time that these collections of
  writings began to be put together in a certain order, and this
  collection of letters and writings started shaping into the one-volume
  book that we are familiar with today.

Interesting background info on the city of Byblos: Byblos

Byblos was the religious capital of the Phoenicians, whose greatest gift to mankind was the invention of an alphabet to replace hieroglyphics. That city also was a major producer of papyrus. Thus, the combination of material technology (papyrus), innovation in communications (22 letter alphabet) and being the center of the spread of religious ideas (their own and that of the Egyptians) makes Byblos the perfect city for which to name a book of great importance.


If Jesus' ministry was to the Jews, why did He go to Syria? Matthew 4:25 (HCSB) says,

  Then the news about Him spread throughout Syria. So they brought to
  Him all those who were afflicted, those suffering from various
  diseases and intense pains, the demon-possessed, the epileptics, and
  the paralytics. And He healed them.

But in Matthew 15:24 Jesus said,

  “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of
  Israel.”

If Jesus' ministry was to the Jews, why would he go into a Gentile nation? I am assuming that he actually entered Syria, because His fame spread throughout Syria – I could be wrong. Yet to enter Syria, he would need to go through Lebanon as well, taking him far afield. How do any Protestant Bible scholars explain the mention of Syria in this verse? Perhaps Jesus knew some Jews were there?

By "Syria" in this passage, the evangelist did not intend specifically the area now taken up into the Arab Republic of Syria (which was not a country until after the First World War). Rather, what was meant was the Roman province of Syria, which included all the modern-day country of Lebanon, as well as parts of modern-day Israel, Jordan, and Syria. It was a much larger area than the Roman client kingdoms of Judea or Galilee (which it included), and there were Jews throughout the area at that point.

In other words, as the evangelist is using "Syria" here, Jesus was already in Syria - he was born, lived, and died in Rome's Syria Provincia. The impression the evangelist wants to give is of Jesus' reputation spreading over a much wider area than just the neighborhood he was traveling and working in at the time.


Is it permitted for a priest say a Mass of Pope Pius V for new saints while employing the prayers taken from the Mass of Paul VI? Is it permissible for a priest say a Mass in the Extraordinary Form for new saints (canonized after 1962) while employing the prayers (Opening Prayer or Collect, Prayer over the Offerings and the Prayer after Communion) taken from the Mass of Paul VI?

It would be so awesome to go to Mass in the Extraordinary Form using the Mass propers of some of the newer saints like St. Maximilian Kolbe.

Is it permissible for a priest say a Mass in the Extraordinary Form for new saints (canonized after 1962) while employing the prayers or the orations (of the Opening Prayer or Collect, Prayer over the Offerings and the Prayer after Communion) taken from the Mass of Paul VI?

The short answer is yes.

Permission was given by Ecclesia Dei in 1993.

The “Common” in #4 is the ones as taken from the Mass of Pope Pius V. This has been the practice of the Benedictine monasteries of Fontgombault, Randol, Triors, Gaussian, Clear Creek (USA) and Saint-Paul de Wisques. Both Cardinal Paul Augustin Mayer and Mgr. Pearl have visited the Abbey of Fontgombault in the 1990s.

Further more Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger visited the Abbey of Fontgombault in July 2001 and said the following while there:

  For the future, we ought to think—it seems to me—in terms of enriching the Missal of 1962 by introducing some new saints; there are now some important figures among the saints—I am thinking, for example, of Maximilian Kolbe, Edith Stein, the martyrs of Spain, the martyrs of the Ukraine, and so many others—but I am also thinking of that little Bakhita in the Sudan, who came from slavery and came to freedom in her faith in the Lord; there are many really lovely figures whom we all need. Thus, opening up the calendar of the old Missal to new saints, making a well thought-out choice of these, that seems to me something that would be appropriate at present and would not have any destructive effect on the fabric of the liturgy. We might also think about the Prefaces, which also come from the storehouse of wealth in the Church Fathers, for Advent, for example, and then others; why not insert those Prefaces into the old Missal?

  Thus, with great sensitivity and by showing a great deal of understanding for people's fears and preoccupations, maintaining contact with their leaders, we should be able to understand that this Missal is also a Missal of the Church and under the authority of the Church, that it is not an object preserved from the past, but a living reality within the Church, very much respected in its particular identity and for its historical stature, but also considered as something that is living and not as a dead thing, a relic of the past. The whole liturgy of the Church is always a living thing, a reality that is found above us and is not subject to our decisions and our arbitrary intentions. - Looking Again at the Question of the Liturgy with Cardinal Ratzinger: Proceedings of the July 2001 Fontgombault Liturgical Conference


In Calvinism, why does free will to accept salvation seem to take away from God's glory? Background: We are unable to accept Christ without His work in us. God gives every man, life, faith, breath, and everything else needed to come to Him.

"And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; - Ephesians 2:1
"That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: - Ephesians 2:12

Question: In Calvinism, it seems the belief that being able to accept or reject Jesus (for example, as could be argued from Matthew 13) takes away from God's glory because it becomes dependent on "us" - and makes salvation a works issue.
What scriptures lead to this viewpoint?
I am wondering if this is simply a false dilemma fallacy. Because I fail to see how it has to be either 1) forced on us, or else 2) we are "helping" God save us.

The reason freely choosing to accept the gift of Jesus would rob God of glory in Reformed theology is that it would soft pedal the nature of the fall. Calvinists understand that when mankind fell into sin it affected our entire person and nature, leaving no portion unaffected. This is not the same thing as saying that humanity is as bad as it could possibly be. We do have choices, and God bridles evil as a matter of common grace, but that every part of man has been corrupted by the fall: our thoughts, our consciences, our bodies, our emotions, our reasoning, our spirituality, and everything else that makes us human is worse than it was before we sinned, but we have enough of the general idea behind the thing that we can recognize what we are missing.

The phrase, "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" has lost its rhetorical effect due to common usage in situations where helping yourself is merely challenging and not impossible, but the literal imagery is someone doing something physically impossible but conceptual feasible for someone who does not understand physics. We are familiar with the experience of pulling on something heavy and lifting it up, so we can imagine a person who is really strong being so strong he can lift his own weight and pull himself out of a pit by pulling on his bootstraps. But to explain in precise physical terms why that can't happen takes some effort.

In the same way, "choosing Jesus" with no special grace or election in the Calvinist conception is virtually the same as pulling oneself up by their own bootstraps. It seems possible, but in order for it to happen it would have to mean that a person who is enslaved to sin one day decides for themselves that they've had enough of it and don't want to be a slave. What then is slavery if you can just walk away from it? It means that a person who decides to sin because of a mistrust and growing enmity with God decides one day that God is now trustworthy again and a friend.

The free-will emphasis ultimately takes the work of God in planning, urging, sending, entreating, disciplining, electing, and regenerating and attributes it to the person who is not responsible for it. Jesus died on the cross to accomplish this, and it was the Father's will from the foundations of the world to bring about salvation for his people this way and his primary method of glorifying his name. To undercut the divine action and attribute it the the sinner gives the credit to the sinner for doing the thing that God did, which robs him of glory.

When the Israelites made the Golden Calf they said, "These are the gods that delivered us out of Egypt," and in so doing attributed the salvific work of God to inanimate idols and thereby robbing him of glory. God makes a name for himself by dealing mercifully with and saving his people, so Christians in turn are to ascribe to the Lord honor for his mighty deeds; the greatest of which is saving sinners.


In Genesis, how did the first language come to be? How did Adam, and then Eve, learn to speak?

By being made in the image of God, God granted man one of his attributes- namely the ability to communicate. As a God in communion and relationship with himself ("let us create man in our image Gen 1.26) the power of speech and language would have been understood to merely be part of that Imago Dei.

Furthermore, the fact that Adam was given the job of naming the animals indicates that God had given Adam the power of speech.

The Paley hypothesis, popular in the 1800s suggested that God created creatures fully adult like, so God creating a speaking Adam would have been perfectly natural.


Sources on Historical Reliability of the New Testament Unlike many of the other great religions of the world - Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, even Judaism to some extent - Christianity is founded not on a philosophy or a metaphysical idea, but on an historical event.

According to Christianity, sometime around the year 0 a boy was born in the town of Bethlehem; sometime around the year 30 that same boy, now a man, started preaching, gathering disciples, healing and confronting the authorities that be. A few years later, those same authorities had him crucified. But a few days later he was seen alive by his disciples. After he returned to heaven these disciples travelled all over the known world, preaching this message - that the word has become flesh and has dwelt among us. A good number of them were killed before denying what they believed. 2000 years later, millions of people around the world still live lives, not just according to this man's teaching, but in some way 'in' him, and he in them too.

My question is very broad, but basically very simple. If Christianity is indeed based so firmly on real historical events, then surely there must have been significant scholarly work to discern the reliability of the New Testament cannon. Has this work been summarised in any books? Are there any objective (as far as that's possible) reviews of the historical reliability of the claims of the New Testament writings (particularly the Gospels and Paul's writings). Or possibly are there several complementing (should I say competing :) ) works that would give a balanced overview.

What frustrates me the most about this issue is the dichotomy of views. To take but one example, my good old NIV study bible says, concerning the authorship of 1 Timothy, that '...evidence is convincingly supportive of Paul's authorship' yet according to Wikipedia 'most modern scholars' hold that Paul was not the author.

As I said at the beginning, Christianity is in many ways unique in that the entire religion is firmly based on purported historical events. In light of the great range of opinions and views we hear on this issue, I want to spend some time looking at the new testament independently of my Christian bias. Any help (particularly recommended reading) would be greatly appreciated. Thankyou

If you mean events: much of the NT concerns small groups of average people. We would not expect independent validation, so any question of historic accuracy is limited to a single source (or, if you like, a few intertwined sources) (which has inbuilt bias, if evaluating from a clinical perspective). Simply: for much of NT I would expect simply: no one can say for certain, beyond faith.

The grave-openings in Matthew 27:52 are massively unreported, though; from a historic evidence perspective, that is something you might expect people to have noticed and reported, enough to be visible today.

Ultimately, we have only a fragmented set of documentary sources from the time period - the luck of whatever survived 2000 years (whether in original form, or via copying). There honestly isn't an awful lot of parallel evidence to look at (which says nothing about the accuracy of events, or not, other than to say: it is hard to know).

Additionally, any evidence or counter-evidence for any individual event does not prove or disprove any other events. For example, while there may be some independent mention of the crucifixion, that from an evidence basis says nothing about the resurrection.

Likewise, because it is written that something was witnessed by (say) 100 people, does not prove that this is the case; numbers (and events) can be subject to embellishment, so many of the events are, from an evidence perspective, not certain to be reliable.

  I want to spend some time looking at the new testament independently of my Christian bias

That simply does not exist, as such; the key sources are Christian, and it is perfectly well known that the documents selected for inclusion in what became The Bible were selected; among this selection, being "in line" with the dogma was a factor. Unless you mean something like a Jefferson Bible (and I don't think that is what you mean). This is obviously something that a lot of people have looked at lots of times, over lots of years. To date, I am honestly unaware of any compelling evidence that has not faced significant criticism, usually for uncertain logic, cherry-picking over the (scant) evidence, and making some fairly large assumptions (in particular with the motivation of characters or authors).

If you are a believer, I suggest: base your beliefs on your faith.


Are there any other early non-canonical nativity accounts besides the Gospel of James? In the spirit of the season, I wanted to peruse some nativity accounts in ante-Nicene or near-post-Nicene literature.  I've read the Gospel of James of course, but I don't really know of any other non-canonical nativity accounts.
This would include non-canonical Gospels or Acts, or accounts given in passing in the works of the ante-Nicene fathers, e.g. Irenaeus, Clement, Hippolytus, and so forth.  Or even something from the fourth century like Augustine would be interesting.
Any suggestions?
Thank you!

Are there any other early non-canonical nativity accounts besides the Gospel of James?
There are not many non-canonical nativity accounts from the Early Church, but a few do exist other the the Gospel of James.

Apocryphal Sources for the Nativity
Even with the information in the two Gospels combined, Matthew and Luke provide us with relatively few details about the Nativity event. A curious reader—or an artist wishing to create a Nativity—is left with many unanswered questions. For example, from Luke we learn that there was no room for the family in the “inn” (Greek = kataluma, sometimes translated “guest house”), so the baby was laid in a manger. But was the manger located in a stable, a cave, or perhaps on the ground floor of a house? Since a manger is a trough for feeding livestock, what kinds of animals might have been nearby? How many wise men (Greek = magoi) came to present gifts to Jesus? And what adventures might the family have faced during their flight into Egypt to escape Herod’s persecution?
Answers to questions like these can be found in a group of texts written during the first thousand or so years of Christianity known as the New Testament Apocrypha. As the word apocrypha (“hidden”) suggests, these writings have not been recognized by church authorities as being part of the official canon of the New Testament. In fact, due to their dubious historical content and fanciful tone, the early church often discouraged people from reading them. But the New Testament Apocrypha, some of which were written as early as the second century, maintain many of the essentials of the Christian message, while at the same time providing additional details, color, and drama. In fact, because people were eager for more information about the birth and early life of Jesus, a special genre of apocryphal literature developed, now called “infancy Gospels.” Many of the visual elements we associate with Nativity scenes today come from details provided in these early Christian writings.
For a long time the best known published source for the apocrypha in English was The Apocryphal New Testament: Being the Apocryphal Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypses with Other Narratives and Fragments by M.R. James (1924); this has now been updated by J.K. Elliott with The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation (1993). In addition, some of the best known apocryphal texts with information about the Nativity and infancy of Christ are available on the Web in older English translation. Links to three of these are below:

The Infancy Gospel of James (2nd century)

The Arabic Infancy Gospel (5th-6th century)

The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew (8th or 9th century)

There is also the Gospel of Thomas (130-180 AD).

The Gospel of Thomas (130-180 AD)
This late non-canonical text was first discovered in 1945 as part of a large collection of papyri excavated near Nag Hammadi in Egypt. It is a collection of sayings attributed to Jesus, written in the Coptic language, and attributed to a conversation recorded by “Didymos Judas Thomas”.
The History of Joseph the Carpenter (400-480 AD)
Like The Infancy Gospel of Thomas and The Infancy Gospel of James, The History of Joseph the Carpenter is another example of non-canonical legend that was created in order to answer questions about the life of Jesus. Many details of Jesus’ life prior to the age of twelve were left unaddressed in the canonical Gospels, and several late non-canonical works were created in order to satisfy the growing desire for additional information. This text is written as a message from Jesus on the Mount of Olives in which he talks about the life of His stepfather, Joseph. The text relies heavily on The Infancy Gospel of James for its content, but not much is known about the exact origin of The History of Joseph the Carpenter. Scholars believe that the text was written in Egypt (as late as the 5th century) and two versions of the text have survived, one written in Coptic and one written in Arabic. In addition to this the text seems to neatly address issues raised in other Nag Hammadi documents such as The First Apocalypse of James.

Apart from the Apocrypha, the Pagan Sibyls of old prophesied about the coming of Christ and his infancy.
The word Sibyl means Prophetess, and this word was originated from Greek. Here follows the five Sibyls in question:

Erythrean Sibyl appears as the one who has prophesied the Redemption in arts.
Persian Sibyl seems to be the priestess who occupied over Apollo Oracle.
Libyan Sibyl was priestess who was the presiding over Zeus Ammon Oracle.
Cumaean Sibyl was the pristess who were the head of the Apollo Oracle at Cumae.
Delphic Sibyl was a figure who made prophecies at Delphi.


What is the Christian take on reincarnation? What does the Bible say about reincarnation? (as in after making mistakes in this life you are given another chance in the next life).

As far as I know it is not a Biblical thing(since the dead are asleep until Christ will come again), but a co-worker strongly believes that Christianity supports it and I was looking for some resources that might help in this matter.

I'm mostly interested in the New Testament but Old Testament verses can help as well. Thanks

Reincarnation is not an orthodox Christian idea. Resurrection is.1

The most long standing articulation of this belief among Christians can be found in the Nicene Creed:

  I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.

Nicene Christians (includes all mainstream traditions, excludes some sects) believe that we live once, die once, then are resurrected either to Heaven or Hell. Although there is the idea of a life different from the one we are living now, this eternal existence is quite different from the idea of living life again in the same or similar earthly context that is 'reincarnation'.

  Hebrews 9:27 (ESV)
  27  And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,

Outside of established historical Christianity the lines get a bit blurry. There are few topics (the nature of Jesus Christ aside) that have generated so many aberrant teachings as the nature of the resurrection of humans. There have been many direct challenges to this (e.g. Annihilationism's belief that some or all beings simply cease to exist) and even comprehensive variant systems (e.g. Mormonism's belief in other worlds and levels of being that can be attained) but I think it is more likely that your friend subscribes to some sort of post modern conflation of religions. There are a large number of folks using the name "Christian" who do not subscribe to it's historical tenets. Most commonly they reject the divinity of Christ and/or the inerrancy of Scripture. Seeing Jesus as only a good moral teacher rather than the Christ, there is no reason not to also pick and choose various doctrines from the worlds other popular religious systems. Enter karma, reincarnation, etc.

Scripture itself contains no support whatsoever for the idea of reincarnation. However in order to come to this conclusion about it you must first agree that it means something. If not just parts but all of it is to be considered true and words are believed to have meanings and the intent of the original authors is to be considered, nothing will support your friends case. However without those a priori assumptions, of course any number of small phrases may be plucked from their original contexts and presented in support of any number of philosophical ideas.

1 See this excellent answer on a related question: What's the difference between resurrection and reincarnation?


When should Water Baptism be done on a candidate? Could you please give me any biblical supports as to when should water baptism be done to a candidate (assuming the candidate has already met the so called "requirements" before being baptized, such as repentance of all sins (past and present); acceptance of the Messiah as Personal Master and Savior; faith on the importance of our Savior's dying on the cross)?

When should the water baptism be done? Should it be on or during a biblical feast, such as Pesach, Shavout or Sukkot? For example, in Acts 2, Peter and the disciples had baptized 3000 believers during the Pentecost. On the water baptism of our Messiah by John, the Scripture is silent on when it was done; it could not be during or before any feast because after His baptism the Ruach Ha Khadosh brought Him to wilderness to be tempted for 40 days. In Acts 10:47-48, concerning the conversion of the centurion, his family and friends, Peter baptized them but again the Scripture is silent on when was it held.

The scriptures never tell us on which occasion the baptism should be performed.

One thing for sure is that Baptism was done immediately after the candidate accepted Jesus Christ.

Some examples:

The first believers on the Pentecost day were Baptized that day itself.

  Acts 2:41 (NIV) Those who accepted his message were baptized, and
  about three thousand were added to their number that day.

The Ethiopian eunuch took baptism shortly after accepting Jesus Christ. (Acts 8:26-40)

  36 As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the
  eunuch said, “Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my
  being baptized?”

The Jailer and his household took Baptism immediately the same night he accepted Jesus. (Acts 16:16-40)

  33 At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their
  wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized.

Cornelius the centurion and every one present in his house took baptism right after Peter preached to them. (Acts 10)

  44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on
  all who heard the message.47 “Surely no one can stand in the way of
  their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit
  just as we have.”

There are more references but I believe this is sufficient.


Is money the root of 'all' evil or 'some' evil? I remember reading a Hebrew version of the Bible with English translation *right to left) many years ago and I am sure the English directly translated to 'some evil' rather than 'all evil'. Can anyone confirm this?

The quote is from 1 Tim 6:10 (which would have been written in Greek, not Hebrew). The Greek reads:

ῥίζα γὰρ πάντων τῶν κακῶν ἐστιν ἡ φιλαργυρία

Here are some translations:

KJV: For the love of money is the root of all evil
ASV, NRSV, TNIV: For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil
NET: For the love of money is the root of all evils.

The NET gives two translator's notes:

This could be taken to mean “a root,” but the phrase “of all evils” clearly makes it definite. This seems to be not entirely true to life (some evils are unrelated to love of money), but it should be read as a case of hyperbole (exaggeration to make a point more strongly).
Many translations render this “of all kinds of evil,” especially to allow for the translation “a root” along with it. But there is no parallel for taking a construction like this to mean “all kinds of” or “every kind of.” The normal sense is “all evils.”


Why are Matthew, Mark, and Luke called the synoptic gospels? The first three gospels are sometimes known as the "synoptic" gospels. What does this term mean, and how does it differentiate them from the gospel of John?

Syn- means same (as in synchronize, same time), and optic of course refers to sight.  The three first Gospels are syn-optic because they see alike; they basically tell the same story as each other, covering many of the same events.  John, on the other hand, focuses on a lot of different material than the other authors, and has a very high percentage of unique content.


Are there any Tridentine Rite Catholic communities that also use the Liturgical Calendar of 1970? The Roman Catholic Church has two Liturgical Forms of Mass in usage at the moment: The Ordinary Form of the Mass (of Pope Paul VI) and the Extraordinary Form of the Mass (of Pope Pius V).

Usually those who use the Tridentine Mass (1962) follow the Liturgical Calendar of 1960.

My question is simple: Are there any Tridentine Rite Catholics that in the usage of this Rite have also freely and legitimately employe the Liturgical Calendar of 1970 in lieu of the older calendar?

To the best of my knowledge, the decree "Summorum Pontificum" designating the (more-or-less) traditional rite as the "extraordiary form" of the Roman rite says that it must be celebrated according to the liturgy and calendar of 1962.


What does "he finds his truth" mean in Pope Benedict's Caritas in Veritate? While I was reading Caritas in Veritate, an encyclical letter by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, I found this fragment:

  Love — caritas — is an extraordinary force which leads people to opt for courageous and generous engagement in the field of justice and peace. It is a force that has its origin in God, Eternal Love and Absolute Truth. Each person finds his good by adherence to God's plan for him, in order to realize it fully: in this plan, he finds his truth, and through adherence to this truth he becomes free (cf. Jn 8:32).

What does it mean to find one's truth? To what truth was Pope Benedict XVI alluding in that fragment?

Once we understand the context, we'll be able to work out an answer.  Notice three things:

In this letter, pronouns are not capitalized when referring to God.  There are numerous clear examples where "he" or "his" or "him" must refer to God, but they are not capitalized.  So these words in the sentence in question may apply to men or God, depending on context.
The broader context of this paragraph is on God's love and truth.  God is described as "Eternal Love and Absolute Truth" in the portion you quote, and later in the paragraph, Jesus is said to be "the Truth."
John 8:32, cited here, reads: "you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free" (ESV).  "You" refers to the hearers of Jesus.

With this background, we can take a stab at the sentence in question.  Here it is again:

  Each person finds his good by adherence to God's plan for him, in order to realize it fully: in this plan, he finds his truth, and through adherence to this truth he becomes free (cf. Jn 8:32).

To make sense of "he finds his truth," we must determine to whom the pronouns refer.  Let's start by identifying the easy ones as either God or Santiago:

  Santiago finds Santiago's good by adherence to God's plan for Santiago, in order to realize it fully: in this plan, he finds his truth, and through adherence to this truth Santiago becomes free.

Now, remembering that God has already been called "Absolute Truth," and that God knows everything, it becomes necessary to interpret "he finds his truth" as:

  Santiago finds God's truth

That is, the "truth" here is simply God's truth.  God has a plan for each person, and each person's plan from God involves finding God's truth, and God's truth frees each person who adhers to it.


What is the difference between ESV, NIV and NKJV My daughter is In college and is wanting to buy a new Bible. She has these three options.. I would like her to have one that is easier to understand but still accurate. What are the differences and what do you recommend for her?

Without knowing more about the reasons for your daughter wanting to buy a new Bible, and why it is she has only these three options, it is impossible to make a recommendation.  However, having background information about each of these Bibles will help her to come to a decision.  Below are links to three articles, which provide a brief history as well as pros and cons on each Bible. I have partially quoted from each article:

The English Standard Version (ESV) is a revision of the 1971 edition of the Revised Standard Version. The first edition was published in 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. The ESV Study Bible, also published by Crossway Bibles, was published in October 2008. It uses the ESV translation and adds extensive notes and articles based on evangelical Christian scholarship. Under noted theologian J. I. Packer, who served as general editor, the translators sought and received permission from the National Council of Churches to use the 1971 edition of the RSV as the English textual basis for the ESV. Difficult passages were translated using the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and other original manuscripts.  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/English-Standard-Version-ESV.html
The New International Version (NIV) committee held to certain goals for the NIV: that it be an “accurate, beautiful, clear, and dignified translation suitable for public and private reading, teaching, preaching, memorizing, and liturgical use.” The NIV is known especially as a "thought for thought" or “dynamic equivalence” translation rather than a “word for word” translation...  The greatest ‘con’ of the 2011 NIV is the inclusion of gender-neutral language and the necessity of interpreting rather than translating in order to present a more culturally sensitive or politically correct version.  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/New-International-Version-NIV.html
Although the New King James Version (NKJV) uses substantially the same Hebrew and Greek texts as the original KJV, it indicates where more commonly accepted manuscripts differ. The New King James Version also uses the Textus Receptus ("Received Text") for the New Testament, just as the King James Version had used. The translators have also sought to follow the principles of translation used in the original KJV, which the NKJV revisers call "complete equivalence" in contrast to "dynamic equivalence" or “thought-for-thought” used by many other modern translations, such as the New International Version.  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/New-King-James-Version-NKJV.html

I hope this information will be helpful.


Does God care about countries? I hear "God Bless America" often.  It has puzzled me for many years because it doesn't makes sense to me that God cares about man-made borders or political systems.  The only land I've heard referred to that God prefers is Israel.

Is there any scripture where it shows that God would care about one country more than another?

Further, is there any scripture that indicates that God prefers one political system over another?

In the Old Testament you will find special blessings for Israel; but even then, God did not bless only Israel. He promised Abraham that "in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed" (Genesis 22:18).
Once we look to the New Testament, we have Jesus commanding His disciples to preach His gospel throughout the world (Matthew 28:18-20, Mark 16:15*, Luke 24:46-49, Acts 1:8).
Paul said that in Christ:

Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one—who will justify the circumcised [the Jews] by faith and the uncircumcised [the Gentiles] through faith. (Romans 3:29-30)
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise. (Galatians 3:28-29)

God is not the God of America only, or the God of Israel only -- He is the God over all the world and wishes to draw every person from every nation to Himself (John 3:16-17, 12:32).

And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth." (Revelation 5:9-10, emphasis mine)

* Early manuscripts do not include verses past 16:8


Do they use icons in the Roman Catholic Church? Do they use icons in the Roman Catholic Church like they do in the East Orthodox Church? In my limited experience, I've only seen statues in the Roman Catholic Church, but not icons. I don't just mean having some images in the temple, but also praying while looking at them and kissing them from time to time - just like it is done in the East Orthodox.

I don't know if it's common practice among all Catholics, but I kiss the image of Jesus on my scapular every chance I get.  It's pretty much an icon except it's done on cloth.

I kiss the cross when making the sign of the cross while praying the rosary and on Good Friday we venerate the cross of Jesus by kissing the crucifix. Latin American Catholics are also known to make a tiny cross with their fingers after making the sign of the cross and kissing that (their hand).

There is one company that I know of in the united states that makes Catholic Icons (as well as Orthodox Icons); that's monastery icons. I don't believe a Catholic would be prohibited from venerating any sort of holy icon in an appropriate manner. Blessed icons would be considered sacramentals.