What doctrines are based on 1st Timothy 4:14 when hands are laid on a believer? In 1st Timothy 4:14 (Recovery Version) some elders laid hands on Timothy:

  Do not neglect the gift which is in you, which was given to you by means of prophecy with the laying on of hands of the presbytery.

What are the different views on why mentioning the action of laying on of hands was significant? What are the different things the action could have conferred to the recipient? Is the same "gift given to you" found other places in Scripture?

As ever, context is all important when trying to understand this verse. The gift in question is not the laying on of hands itself, but Timothy's ability to teach and preach:

1 Timothy 4:11-14 (New International Version):

  Command and teach these things. Don’t let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an
  example for the believers in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith and
  in purity. Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of
  Scripture, to preaching and to teaching. Do not neglect your gift,
  which was given you through prophecy when the body of elders laid
  their hands on you.

The Message puts it even more clearly:

  Get the word out. Teach all these things. And don't let anyone put you
  down because you're young. Teach believers with your life: by word, by
  demeanor, by love, by faith, by integrity. Stay at your post reading
  Scripture, giving counsel, teaching. And that special gift of ministry
  you were given when the leaders of the church laid hands on you and
  prayed—keep that dusted off and in use.

So to answer your last question first, references to the same gift given to Timothy (a teaching/preaching ministry) can be found in many places in the Bible. I won't list them here as any decent concordance (or a search of an online Bible) can do that for you.

But the main thrust of your question concerns the laying on of hands. The main principle behind this is a channelling of (for want of a better phrase) spiritual power through touch. Often in new churches you can see someone with one hand raised in the air (towards God) and the other laying on someone's head, shoulder or back while they pray for them - symbolising that the person praying is acting as a conduit, a link between God and the person being prayed for.

As well as the laying on of hands to confer a prophecy as in this case, it's often used in prayers of healing. There are numerous examples in the gospels of Jesus healing people by touching them physically:

Luke 8:43-56 (MSG):

  In the crowd that day there was a woman who for twelve years had
  been afflicted with hemorrhages. She had spent every penny she had on
  doctors but not one had been able to help her. She slipped in from
  behind and touched the edge of Jesus' robe. At that very moment her
  hemorrhaging stopped. Jesus said, "Who touched me?"

  When no one stepped forward, Peter said, "But Master, we've got
  crowds of people on our hands. Dozens have touched you."

  Jesus insisted, "Someone touched me. I felt power discharging from
  me."

  When the woman realized that she couldn't remain hidden, she knelt
  trembling before him. In front of all the people, she blurted out her
  story—why she touched him and how at that same moment she was healed.

  Jesus said, "Daughter, you took a risk trusting me, and now you're
  healed and whole. Live well, live blessed!"

  While he was still talking, someone from the leader's house came up
  and told him, "Your daughter died. No need now to bother the Teacher."

  Jesus overheard and said, "Don't be upset. Just trust me and
  everything will be all right." Going into the house, he wouldn't let
  anyone enter with him except Peter, John, James, and the child's
  parents.

  Everyone was crying and carrying on over her. Jesus said, "Don't
  cry. She didn't die; she's sleeping." They laughed at him. They knew
  she was dead.

  Then Jesus, gripping her hand, called, "My dear child, get up."
  She was up in an instant, up and breathing again! He told them to give
  her something to eat. Her parents were ecstatic, but Jesus warned them
  to keep quiet. "Don't tell a soul what happened in this room."

The laying on of hands is not essential for God to bless the recipient (as shown when Jesus heal's a woman's daughter without the daughter being present, as outlined in Matthew 15:21-28) but the passage above shows how powerful and effective physical touch can be,and the laying on of hands is simply an expression/extension of that.


Does the pope get paid for being the pope? I just started wondering after seeing the white smoke, did the cardinal just receive a raise when he became the pope? What's his salary if he is paid.

Actually the opposite: his pay went down to 0. The pope receives no salary.

His modest daily needs (food, shelter, clothing, medical care) are provided for by the Vatican1. Popes do not accumulate wealth, and usually die in office. It's difficult to even imagine what he would use money for. He has all he needs. He is able to say the Mass, and he is able to serve God and people. He lives in the midst of a beautiful historic site.

Sometimes, Catholics try to give him money, but he just gives it all away.

1 - though perhaps not always to our standards: "Reportedly, the Papal Apartments had been in disrepair, with 'outmoded furnishings and lack of lighting' and large drums placed in the false ceiling to catch water leaks." (Wikipedia)


What evidence is there that the New Testament was originally written in Aramaic? The Hebraic Roots Bible makes the claim,

  The original New Testament was not written in Greek, but Aramaic.

I thought that only the Gospel of Matthew might have been written in Aramaic, and that the rest of the NT was originally written in Greek.

There is also the strange claim that the name Yahshua (Jesus) appears in the Old Testament:

  There are also almost 100 scriptures in the Tanach (Old Testament) that personify our Savior’s name. Due to the fact that most translations do not use our Savior’s original Hebrew name they totally miss this fact.

This is impossible because the Old Testament was written before Jesus was famous. Perhaps the word in these passages that the Hebraic Roots Bible translates as Yahshua should be translated as a simple word, not a name, as it is in other translations.

There are several evidences that New Testament was written in Aramaic. First century Israel spoke Aramaic. Not Greek. Jewish Historian and Priest Josephus tells us that Greek wasn't spoken in first century Israel and also "the extreme rarity" in terms of a Jew knowing Greek.

Josephus wrote:

"I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understand the elements of the Greek language, although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own tongue, that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness; for our nation does not encourage those that learn the languages of many nations, and so adorn their discourses with the smoothness of their periods; because they look upon this sort of accomplishment as common, not only to all sorts of free-men, but to as many of the servants as please to learn them. But they give him the testimony of being a wise man who is fully acquainted with our laws, and is able to interpret their meaning; on which account, as there have been many who have done their endeavors with great patience to obtain this learning, there have yet hardly been so many as two or three that have succeeded therein, who were immediately well rewarded for their pains." - Antiquities of Jews XX, XI (AD 93).

Jewish Wars (Book 1, Preface, Paragraph 1):
I have proposed to myself, for the sake of such as live under the government of the Romans, to translate those books into the Greek tongue, which I formerly composed in the language of our country, and sent to the Upper Barbarians. Joseph, the son of Matthias, by birth a Hebrew, a priest also, and one who at first fought against the Romans myself, and was forced to be present at what was done afterwards, [am the author of this work]."

In New Testament Bible, there are several names with "Bar". They are "Bar"tholomew, "Bar"abbas, "Bar"nabbas, Joseph "Bar"sabbas, Judas "Bar"sabbas, "Bar"Timaeus, Simon "Bar" Jonah, and "Bar" Jesus.

Aramaic word "Bar" means Son.

Jewish Wars Book 5, Chapter 4, Paragraph 2 - This new-built part of the city was called "Bezetha," in our language, which, if interpreted in the Grecian language, may be called "the New City."

"tha" at the end of "Bezetha" is the Aramaic definite article on a feminine noun in an emphatic state (Source - Book "Introduction to Syriac" by Wheeler Thackston, Page 44).

In Acts 1:19, Field of Blood was known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem in their own language as Akeldama which is the transliteration of Aramaic words "Khqel Dama."

Greek NT manuscripts contains several textual variations. According to Greek Scholar Herman C. Hoskier in his book "Codex B and it Allies" (1914) volume 2, there are 3,036 textual variations between Greek NT manuscript "Codex Sinaiticus" and Greek NT manuscript "Codex Vaticanus" in the text of the Gospels alone, enumerated as follows: Matthew: 656, Mark: 567, Luke: 791, John: 1022.

Many of the textual variations and confusions in Greek NT manuscripts are corrected by Aramaic New Testament known as Eastern Aramaic Peshitta. Here are 2 major examples. I want to write more. But it will be too long.

1) Romans 5:7-8 (Translated from Greek NT) - "For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; though for the good man perhaps some one would even dare to die; but God renders his love for us conspicuous in this, that, we being yet sinners, Christ died for us."

Notice the word "righteous." This is confusing, because righteous and good are synonyms.

I believe H T Anderson's English translation of Greek NT manuscript Codex Sinaiticus (4th century AD) is one of the easiest to access on Internet.

Here is Aramaic Peshitta translation of Romans 5:7-8.

Romans 5:7-8 (Etheridge Translation) - "for hardly for the wicked one dieth; for on account of the good one may perhaps dare to die. Nevertheless Aloha hath manifested his love for us, in that, when we were sinners, the Meshiha for us died."

Unlike Greek NT which says "righteous", Aramaic Peshitta says "Wicked." Why is that?

This error in Greek NT happened due to a horrible mistranslation from Aramaic Peshitta which is explained in the below 5 minute youtube video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyJ0WDIvA7w

2) 1 Corinthians 13:3

1 Corinthians 13:3 (KJV) says: “And though I bestow all my goods to feed [the poor], and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.”

The ISV of 1 Corinthians 13:3 says: “Even if I give away all that I have and surrender my body so that I may boast but have no love, I get nothing out of it.”

Versions that say burned or a variation thereof: ALT, AMP, ASV, BBE, CEV*, DARBY, Douay- Rheims, ESV*, Geneva, GodsWord, Holman, KJ21, KJV, LITV, MKJV, MSG, NASB*, NIV*, NIVUK, NKJV*, RSV, TEV, WE (Worldwide English), Webster, Weymouth, WYC (Wycliffe), YLT (Young’s Literal Translation).

The versions marked by an asterisk, *, have footnotes that mention that early mss (manuscripts) have boast or a variation thereof, rather than burn. It is noteworthy that the Alexandrian NU Text says boast also.

Versions that say boast or a variation thereof: ISV, NLT (New Living Translation), Rotherham.

The reading (kauchswmai, “I might boast”) is in Greek manuscripts like Ì46 Í A B 048 33 1739*.

The competing reading, (kauqhsomai, “I will burn”), is found in Greek manuscripts such as C D F G L 81 1175 1881* and a host of patristic writers. A few other Byzantine Greek readings include: (kauqhswmai) (“I might burn”) and καυθη∋ (“it might be burned”) read by 1505.

Now, it just so happens that the Aramaic root yqd can mean “to burn”, but can also mean “to boast”. It is clear that the disagreement in the Greek texts points to the Aramaic original.

Here is the verse from Aramaic Peshitta, translated by Aramaic scholar Paul Younan:

“And if I give all my possessions to feed {the poor,} and if I surrender my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.”

You may ask why would Apostle Paul write to Jews & Gentiles in Aramaic in Greek or Turkish regions? Through Josephus, we know that Jews knowing Greek were extremely rare in first century AD.

We also know that Jews took their Aramaic language wherever they went. In Acts 21, when Jews who came from Asia (Turkish regions) saw Paul at temple of Jerusalem, they called "Men of Israel" for help in Aramaic. Asia refers to Turkish region in first century AD. Here is the link to the map - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1stMithritadicwar89BC.png

You can get more information from the below video and also through video description below the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdP3sOqY2hc

Here is another difference between Greek NT manuscripts and Aramaic NT manuscripts.

In Acts 16:1 and Galatians 2:3 (of Greek NT manuscripts) point out that many of the important early Christians were Greek, such as Timothy and Titus.

But Acts 16:1 and Galatians 2:3 of Aramaic NT (Aramaic Peshitta) tell us that they were Arameans. Arameans are Aramaic speaking Gentiles in Syria. Greeks called Arameans "Syrians." This was mentioned by Greek Historian and Geographer Strabo (64 BC- 23 AD) in his book Geography.

That is why Laban the Aramean (in Genesis 31:24 of Hebrew Masoretic Text) is called Laban the Syrian (in Genesis 31:24 of Septuagint), "Aram" and "Arameans" (in 2 Samuel 8:6 of Hebrew Masoretic Text) are called "Syria" and "Syrians" (in 2 Samuel 8:6 of Septuagint).

That is why NIV translates "Aramean language" in (2 Kings 18:26 of Hebrew Masoretic Text) as "Aramaic" and Douay Rheims Bible translates "Syrian language" in 2 Kings 18:26 of Septuagint and "Syriace" in 2 Kings 18:26 of Latin Vulgate as Syriac.

But you may ask how is it possible that Jesus could not have spoken Greek since we see a Greek woman born in Syrian Phoenicia begging Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter in Mark 7:26?

In Greek NT manuscripts, we read that the woman is Greek. But in Aramaic Peshitta, it says the woman was heathen.

Mark 7:26 (Greek NT and NIV Translation of Greek NT) - "The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter.”

But in Mark 7:26 of Aramaic NT says this - "But the woman was a heathen, from Phoenicia in Syria; and she besought him to cast out the demon from her daughter.”

I want to write more informations. But the post is too long already.


Do Proverbs and Ecclesiastes have polar opposite views of wisdom? I've noticed that Proverbs and Ecclesiastes have shockingly differing views of wisdom and knowledge:

“Her [wisdom and understanding personified] ways are pleasant ways and all her paths are peace.” (Proverbs 3:17)
“Because in much wisdom there is much grief, and increasing knowledge results in increasing pain.” (Ecclesiastes 1:18)

Clearly peace is not the same thing as grief, nor is pain the same as pleasant.  Considering that there is no argument over that, what then make sense of these two verses.  Can they both be true at the same time?  Is wisdom and understanding a grievously pleasant and peacefully painful thing?  Are we supposed to do the math and determine that wisdom is just average then in every regard?
How can these two verses be understood so that they are both true, but can be in harmony with each other and not be a ridiculously obvious contradiction?

I have of late taught that "wisdom" in the book of Proverbs is best understood as the understanding of God's ways or will and the application of such.  In other words, acting and behaving in the manner which God intends for us.  "Knowledge" can be understood in a similar fashion.  This interpretation of wisdom, in my opinion, can be applied to all instances of "wisdom" within Proverbs with the resulting understanding of the passage remaining consistent with all of scripture.  Again, this is my opinion.

However, if we look at Ecc 1:16-18, it would seem the author is boasting that he is responsible for his wisdom and intelligence, not God, and through that he could determine on his own what was foolishness in thought and deed apart from the discernment and direction of God.  But, he knows now such a thing is futile because the more he did what he thought in his own mind as wise, the more trouble he brought upon himself.  So, in this sense, despite both books using the same word the connotation of it is different in these three verses.

To answer the question, then, yes, the two instances of wisdom are indeed polar opposites in that God's wisdom, the understanding and application of His will for our lives, is diametrically opposed to following our own "wisdom" which is selfish, self-interested (Pr 14:2 and others), and governed by a deceitful heart (Jer 17:9).


Is it hypocritical to be a Christian and also be against welfare? Recently someone informed me that it was hypocritical to call myself Christian, and to be against many progressive/liberal policies (the specific argument was about US-run welfare)

So my question: is it hypocritical to call myself a Christian and not support welfare programs?

There are many times in the Bible we as Christians are called to give to the poor such as "If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth." 1 John 3:17-18 NIV

So, while it is said that we  must be willing to serve and give to the poor, it does not say it is the government's job to serve and give to the poor.

While I won't say if I am for or against government welfare, I do not believe the Bible tells us we must support government welfare.


What is the latest position of Catholic Church on the existence of Limbo? Catholics traditionally believe that infants which die before being baptized, go to a place called Limbo. It is not understood whether the belief comes out of a dogmatic teaching of the Church. My question therefore, is: What do the latest teachings of catholic Church say on the existence or otherwise of Limbo ?

The belief in a place on the edge of hell goes back a long way. Dante depicted Limbo as the first circle of Hell (in his poem Inferno, from the Divine Comedy).  Some years ago, there was a rumour that Limbo no longer existed and that the Catholic Church had dispensed with the teaching.  However, these rumours were unfounded and it is also worth noting that limbo (for infants) has never been an official doctrine.  Here is an extract from an article on it:

In Catholic theology, Limbo (Latin limbus, edge or boundary, referring to the edge of Hell) is a doctrine concerning the afterlife condition of those who die in original sin without being assigned to the Hell of the Damned. ... However, Limbo of the Infants is not an official doctrine of the Catholic Church.
The Limbo of Infants (Latin limbus infantium or limbus puerorum) is the hypothetical permanent status of the unbaptized who die in infancy, too young to have committed actual sins, but not having been freed from original sin. Recent Catholic theological speculation tends to stress the hope, although not the certainty, that these infants may attain heaven instead of the state of Limbo.
While the Catholic Church has a defined doctrine on original sin, it has none on the eternal fate of unbaptized infants, leaving theologians free to propose different theories, which magisterium is free to accept or reject. Limbo is one such theory.  Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbo#Limbo_of_Infants

The same article provides information on the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church with regard to children who have died without being baptised. There is also a detailed official response (2007) to a document originally commissioned by Pope John Paul II, entitled "The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die without Being Baptized."  Part of the article says this:

Pope Benedict XVI authorized publication of this document, indicating that he considers it consistent with the Church's teaching, though it is not an official expression of that teaching.  Media reports that by the document "the Pope closed Limbo" are thus without foundation...  in paragraph 41 it repeats that the theory of Limbo "remains a possible theological opinion". The document thus allows the hypothesis of a limbo of infants to be held as one of the existing theories about the fate of children who die without being baptised, a question on which there is "no explicit answer" from Scripture or tradition.  The traditional theological alternative to Limbo was not Heaven, but rather some degree of suffering in Hell. At any rate, these theories are not the official teaching of the Catholic Church, but are only opinions that the Church does not condemn, permitting them to be held by its members, just as is the theory of possible salvation for infants dying without baptism.  Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbo#Modern_era

In 2013 Stephen Beale asked ‘Whatever Happened to Limbo?’ and answered “Contrary to what you might have heard, limbo is not dead.”  A 2007 report, issued by the International Theological Commission declared:

It is clear that the traditional teaching on this topic has concentrated on the theory of Limbo. … This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis.

More information here: https://catholicexchange.com/whatever-happened-to-limbo
The article also mentions that the limbo of the fathers of the Old Testament, who died believing in a savior whom they had never met or known, was closed after Christ accomplished His redemptive work on the cross.


If you are forgiven through the Grace of God, why do you need an Indulgence? Ephesians 2:8,9 (NIV)

  8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

And from Wikipedia's definition of "Indulgence", it

  is the full or partial remission of temporal punishment due for sins which have already been forgiven....They are granted for specific good works and prayers.

What I don't understand is, if you are forgiven, what punishment does the Indulgence remove? If you are "saved not by good works", how can good works remove that punishment?

The idea is that we are not our own. If you read that in light of:

  Consider your own calling, brothers. Not many of you were wise by
  human standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth.
  Rather, God chose the foolish of the world to shame the wise, and
  God chose the weak of the world to shame the strong, and God chose
  the lowly and despised of the world, those who count for nothing, to
  reduce to nothing those who are something, so that no human being
  might boast before God.

1 Cor 26-29

There's another reason why no one should boast.

Eph 2:8-9 is more to admonish Pharisees who thought they were saved by adherence to the law and 1 Cor 26-29 is to admonish the rich and powerful who thought they were above the law.  Both use the same language and ought to be read in the same context, they can't really mean two different things or have different weight.

Indulgences are just a way of understanding in a human way how our actions can reduce our temporal punishment in purgatory, or be applied to others to reduce their punishment.  If we need to pay to the last penny, then we need a method of payment that is possible for human beings to understand.

One thing we can agree on though, it is not necessary for salvation to receive indulgences.

Selling indulgences is just plain old Simony, which is not something that should have ever been going on, although it clearly did.


Why is Jesus sitting at "God’s right hand" not "the Father's right hand"? I have noted that some people do not believe in the doctrine of trinity, namely "three personas, one nature", but my question is not about whether the doctrine is true!
This question is also not about what "of the same nature, but different personas" actually means.
That question was asked by me at What does it mean that Jesus, Father, and Holy Spirit are of the same nature but different personas?
However, if you feel that answering, what it means, is required for answering this question, I am happy about clarification.
This question is also not about how to argue for the trinity, I asked this at How is the doctrine of the Trinity substantiated?
This question is about, how how those, that believe the doctrine of trinitarianism explain the following verses. Thus this is not a question of opinion.

When I do the search
https://www.openbible.info/topics/jesus_sitting_at_the_right_hand_of_the_father
I actually do not get phrases in which Jesus is sitting at the right hand of the father, but instead the right hand side of God, or the power of God and similar, e.g. Acts 7, 56.
How does this coincide with the doctrine of the trinity? According to the doctrine of the trinity I understand that Jesus and the Father are personas of God. While I cannot claim to understand what that means, I would intuitively expected that Jesus should be sitting next to the Father.
https://www.gotquestions.org/right-hand-God.html mentions that

Therefore, what we can say is that "God’s right hand" refers to the Messiah, the LORD Jesus Christ and He is of equal position, honor, power and authority with God (John 1:1-5).

Also here I would have expected to see "Father" instead of "God".
On the other hand it seems that Jesus "went" to the father

And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." Having said this, He breathed His last. (Luke 23:46)

and by with the Father

For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself. (John 5:26)

The question is why the texts say "God's right hand" rather than "the Father's right hand". Is "God’s right hand" a title / expression but not to be understood as a description of the relationship of God/Jesus/Father?
(This questions was inspired by https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/47522, but is different.)

Since we believe the one God, Yahweh, is triune, "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19), to refer to any of the persons by simply the word "God," in an unqualified manner is perfectly valid, and even natural.
That is to say, we can mean, for example, "the Son" by 'God' in the phrase "the blood of [God]" (Acts 20:28) without referring explicitly to the Son, of whom it is obviously said, and God understood. Likewise, when St. Peter calls the Holy Spirit "God," but doesn't explicitly say the Holy Spirit, we know that the Holy Spirit is the immediate appositional referent.
"But Peter said: Ananias, why hath Satan tempted thy heart, that thou shouldst lie to the Holy Ghost, and by fraud keep part of the price of the land? Whilst it remained, did it not remain to thee? and after it was sold, was it not in thy power? Why hast thou conceived this thing in thy heart? Thou hast not lied to men, but to God. (Acts 5:3-4).
In other words, we rely on context to indicate either which or whether any person in particular is meant by the word.
In John 1, for example, when we hear that God created the world and the Word was He through Whom He made the world, that the first instance of "God" refers to the Father, and the latter to the Son, because the Word is the Son of God, and because of the impossibility of the Father, who is the head of the Trinity (as well as the Spirit who is part of the Trinity) of being excluded from creation where we know the Son was.
Likewise,  in the Old Testament, the Messenger of Yahweh, a mysterious figure who is sent from God, yet is identified as Yahweh himself and himself says he is Yahweh, and is identified as the Saviour. The Fathers of the Church understood this Messenger of the Lord to be Christ before His incarnation, and not an angelic being.
He speaks of God in the third person in the same breath as he says that He is Yahweh, where it is therefore understood to refer to the Father.
So when Jesus is stood on the right side of God, it can only refer to the Father, and so no more specificity is required. In fact, in the New Testament period, to call the Son or Spirit "God" was we do today was a rarity. Instead, in the primitive period in the Church, the Son and Spirit were viewed of with respect to the Father: 'God because from God.' Rather than God 'alongside' the Father as some equally Father-like person, simply because He is co-eternal, or as if there was no actual distinction between the persons. That is, "God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God" (Nicene Creed). Even in the Nicene Creed, God is used of the Father here because He is, according to orthodox trinitarian theology, the Source of the Son and the Spirit (meant with respect to relationship - eternal begetting, or eternal proceeding from, not temporality).
For this to be in conflict with the doctrine of the trinity, instances where we do see the Father specified instead of simply saying "God," would have to also conflict with a denial of the Trinity.


A question about practising Christianity against authority Romans 13:1-2 (RSV)

  1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.

Suppose a government legally forbids their citizens to practise Christianity (i.e. Catholicism, Protestantism, etc.). According to the verses above, would someone who practises Christianity in this context be resisting God?

No. Christians who live under the authority of a government that outlaws Christianity would not be resisting God by refusing to abandon their faith. One might imagine that the right thing to do is to obey such laws, perhaps crossing the border to go to church. This is not the case. Authority exercised against the common good is authority that has broken down completely. There is no authority, and Christians are in no way bound by the unjust laws of a government that has no authority.
The Catechism has an article on this subject, part of which addresses governing authority that forbids freedom of religion. (Other major denominations have similar teachings, justified in effectively the same way). The particular sections:

1903 Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it. If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience. In such a case, "authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse."
1906 By common good is to be understood "the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily."26 The common good concerns the life of all. It calls for prudence from each, and even more from those who exercise the office of authority. It consists of three essential elements: [...]

These elements are the respect for the person, the social well-being and development of the group itself, and peace. The first element, respect for the person:

1907 First, the common good presupposes respect for the person as such. In the name of the common good, public authorities are bound to respect the fundamental and inalienable rights of the human person. Society should permit each of its members to fulfill his vocation. In particular, the common good resides in the conditions for the exercise of the natural freedoms indispensable for the development of the human vocation, such as "the right to act according to a sound norm of conscience and to safeguard . . . privacy, and rightful freedom also in matters of religion."

This view goes back to the earliest days of Christianity. During times of persecution, Masses were offered up to God in secret places while Christians were fed to lions and set on fire to provide lighting for festive events. Many refused even under torture and threat of death to renounce their beliefs, and were martyred for their faith in God.


What is an overview of Christian viewpoints on what happens to humans after death? My (rather superficial) understanding is that most Christians would agree that human beings are composed of body, spirit and soul. Now, I'm aware that the terms "soul" and "spirit" can be a little bit confusing, that some would claim that there is only "body" and "spirit" and that "spirit" and "soul" are just synonymous, etc. To be honest, my understanding of these terms is not particularly the strongest.
That said, at the moment of death, something happens to this union of body, soul and spirit (whatever these terms mean). With regard to the body, I would expect everyone to agree that it decomposes and turns into dust -- at least this much shouldn't be controversial. But what about the soul and the spirit? Do soul and spirit stay together after death or do they part ways too? And where do they go? And what about a person's consciousness? Are they still conscious or in deep sleep, waiting for the resurrection of the body? And what about their ability to communicate? Can the dead communicate with each other? Can the dead communicate with the living?
As you see, tons of questions can be asked, but I think they can be summarized in a single question: what happens (or can happen) to people once they die?
Since answers are obviously dependent on the particular beliefs of each denomination, I'm interested in an overview of the main Christian viewpoints regarding these questions. References to the biblical basis of each view will be appreciated as well.

What is an overview of Christian viewpoints on what happens to humans after death?
Catholicism

Individual eschatology
Death
Death, which consists in the separation of soul and body, is presented under many aspects in Catholic teaching, but chiefly

as being actually and historically, in the present order of supernatural Providence, the consequence and penalty of Adam's sin (Genesis 2:17; Romans 5:12, etc.);

as being the end of man's period of probation, the event which decides his eternal destiny (2 Corinthians 5:10; John 9:4; Luke 12:40; 16:19 sqq.; etc.), though it does not exclude an intermediate state of purification for the imperfect who die in God's grace; and

as being universal, though as to its absolute universality (for those living at the end of the world) there is some room for doubt because of 1 Thessalonians 4:14 sqq.; 1 Corinthians 15:51; 2 Timothy 4:1.

Particular Judgment
That a particular judgment of each soul takes place at death is implied in many passages of the New Testament (Luke 16:22 sqq.; 23:43; Acts 1:25; etc.), and in the teaching of the Council of Florence (Denzinger, Enchiridion, no. 588) regarding the speedy entry of each soul into heaven, purgatory, or hell.
Heaven
Heaven is the abode of the blessed, where (after the resurrection with glorified bodies) they enjoy, in the company of Christ and the angels, the immediate vision of God face to face, being supernaturally elevated by the light of glory so as to be capable of such a vision. There are infinite degrees of glory corresponding to degrees of merit, but all are unspeakably happy in the eternal possession of God. Only the perfectly pure and holy can enter heaven; but for those who have attained that state, either at death or after a course of purification in purgatory, entry into heaven is not deferred, as has sometimes been erroneously held, till after the General Judgment.
Purgatory
Purgatory is the intermediate state of unknown duration in which those who die imperfect, but not in unrepented mortal sin, undergo a course of penal purification, to qualify for admission into heaven. They share in the communion of saints and are benefited by our prayers and good works (see PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD). The denial of purgatory by the Reformers introduced a dismal blank in their eschatology and, after the manner of extremes, has led to extreme reactions.
Hell
Hell, in Catholic teaching, designates the place or state of men (and angels) who, because of sin, are excluded forever from the Beatific Vision. In this wide sense it applies to the state of those who die with only original sin on their souls (Council of Florence, Denzinger, no. 588), although this is not a state of misery or of subjective punishment of any kind, but merely implies the objective privation of supernatural bliss, which is compatible with a condition of perfect natural happiness. But in the narrower sense in which the name is ordinarily used, hell is the state of those who are punished eternally for unrepented personal mortal sin. Beyond affirming the existence of such a state, with varying degrees of punishment corresponding to degrees of guilt and its eternal or unending duration, Catholic doctrine does not go. It is a terrible and mysterious truth, but it is clearly and emphatically taught by Christ and the Apostles. Rationalists may deny the eternity of hell in spite of the authority of Christ, and professing Christians, who are unwilling to admit it, may try to explain away Christ's words; but it remains as the Divinely revealed solution of the problem of moral evil. (See HELL.) Rival solutions have been sought for in some form of the theory of restitution or, less commonly, in the theory of annihilation or conditional immortality. The restitutionist view, which in its Origenist form was condemned at the Council of Constantinople in 543, and later at the Fifth General Council is the cardinal dogma of modern Universalism, and is favoured more or less by liberal Protestants and Anglicans. Based on an exaggerated optimism for which present experience offers no guarantee, this view assumes the all-conquering efficacy of the ministry of grace in a life of probation after death, and looks forward to the ultimate conversion of all sinners and the voluntary disappearance of moral evil from the universe. Annihilationists, on the other hand, failing to find either in reason or Revelation any grounds for such optimism, and considering immortality itself to be a grace and not the natural attribute of the soul, believe that the finally impenitent will be annihilated or cease to exist — that God will thus ultimately be compelled to confess the failure of His purpose and power. - Eschatology (Catholic Encyclopaedia)

The Catholic Church holds that "all who die in God's grace and friendship but still imperfectly purified" undergo the process of purification which the Church calls purgatory, "so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven". It bases its teaching also on the practice of praying for the dead, in use within the Church ever since the Church began, and mentioned in the deuterocanonical book 2 Maccabees 12:46.2
Limbo of Infants

On 20 April 2007, the advisory body known as the International Theological Commission released a document, originally commissioned by Pope John Paul II, entitled "The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die without Being Baptized." After tracing the history of the various opinions that have been and are held on the eternal fate of unbaptized infants, including that connected with the theory of the Limbo of Infants, and after examining the theological arguments, the document stated its conclusion as follows:
Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision. We emphasize that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us.[33] We live by faith and hope in the God of mercy and love who has been revealed to us in Christ, and the Spirit moves us to pray in constant thankfulness and joy.
What has been revealed to us is that the ordinary way of salvation is by the sacrament of baptism. None of the above considerations should be taken as qualifying the necessity of baptism or justifying delay in administering the sacrament. Rather, as we want to reaffirm in conclusion, they provide strong grounds for hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do, namely, to baptize them into the faith and life of the Church.
Pope Benedict XVI authorized publication of this document, indicating that he considers it consistent with the Church's teaching, though it is not an official expression of that teaching. Media reports that by the document "the Pope closed Limbo" are thus without foundation. In fact, the document explicitly states that "the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin. This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium. Still, that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis" (second preliminary paragraph); and in paragraph 41 it repeats that the theory of Limbo "remains a possible theological opinion". The document thus allows the hypothesis of a limbo of infants to be held as one of the existing theories about the fate of children who die without being baptised, a question on which there is "no explicit answer" from Scripture or tradition. The traditional theological alternative to Limbo was not Heaven, but rather some degree of suffering in Hell. At any rate, these theories are not the official teaching of the Catholic Church, but are only opinions that the Church does not condemn, permitting them to be held by its members, just as is the theory of possible salvation for infants dying without baptism. - Limbo (Wikipedia)

Benedict XII (reigned 1334-1342) declared the following dogma in Benedictus Deus (1336):

We define that according to the general disposition of God, the souls of those who die in actual mortal sin go down into hell immediately (mox) after death and there suffer the pain of hell.

Orthodoxy

God created us for life; it is not His will that we die. Death was not intended for us, not willed by God. It is, as St. Paul says, “the last enemy”. Death is a rebellion against God. It came into the world because the first man and woman chose death, darkness, and themselves over God. Because of sin, death entered this world. And we are all affected by the consequence (death) of Adam and Eve’s sin in Paradise.
When we die, our souls separate from our bodies. After this separation, the body then returns to the earth and, eventually, decomposes. But what happens after that?
Between the moment of our death and the Final Judgment (more on this shortly), the soul lives in a “middle state” and undergoes what we call the particular judgment (Hebrews 9:27). In other words, immediately after death, we experience a foretaste of paradise or hell, depending on the kind of life we lived here on earth. And our souls remain in this state until the Final Judgment, when all will “come forth – those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation” (John 5:28-29).
The Final Judgement
At the Final Judgment, our souls will be reunited with our bodies, and both will be judged before God (2 Corinthians 5:10). We will be judged according to our faith and our works (the fruits of faith).
God will separate the just from the unjust or sinners. To the righteous He will say, “Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world” (Matthew 25:34). And to the sinners: “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matthew 25:41). Then, the sinners “will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life” (Matthew 25:46).
After the Final Judgement, there is either eternal life or eternal punishment. Which one, depends entirely on us and the kind of lives we live. Think of it this way. When we’re born into this world, it’s like having bad vision. Nothing is clear. When we become Orthodox and meet Christ, we’ve just received a pair of glasses. Things clear up, but we keep getting the lenses dirty. The sacraments are God’s way of helping us clean our glasses, over and over again. When we die, we’ll finally see God clearly and will have no need for our glasses anymore. And we will either rejoice in finally seeing Him clearly (if that was our goal in this life) or our eyes will hurt with the sudden vision of light after being so long in the dark. We will experience His presence as either absolute bliss or unbearable agony, for eternity.
What About Purgatory?
Some Church Fathers, including St. Cyprian and St. Augustine, seemed to believe in a purification after death. However, the character of this purification is never clarified, and (as St. Mark of Ephesus underlined at the Council of Florence) it seems there is no true distinction between heaven, hell and the so-called purgatory. In other words, all souls partake in the same mystical fire (which, according to St. Isaac of Syria, is God’s Love), but experience it differently depending on their spiritual state: bliss for those who are in communion with him; purification for those in the process of being deified; and remorse/agony for those who hated God during their earthly lives. - What Happens When We Die?

Protestantism

For Protestants this life is a pilgrimage, a journey toward an eternal destination. That destination is an eternity spent either in heaven or in hell. Those saved enjoy some benefits here on earth during their pilgrimage. Salvation is not just an experience for the afterlife; it involves the "first fruits" of blessedness, that is, a proper relationship with God, a gradual transformation into the likeness of Christ, and the filling of the Holy Spirit. This process will not be complete, however, in this life.
Some Protestants hold that there is nothing one can do to earn a spot in heaven; God freely chooses to forgive the sins of some, and they can enter heaven.  Others hold that though forgiveness is only possible through God's grace, it is offered to all and anyone can freely accept this forgiveness.  These Protestants, who endow humans with some degree of free will and some responsibility for effecting their own salvation, tend also to believe that one's ultimate fate rests to some extent on one's works—both in actively choosing God through faith, and in a life of growing conformity to the teaching of Christ.
Because purgatory is not explicitly mentioned in the Bible, nearly all Protestants reject the Roman Catholic teaching that there is also a transitional place or process of purification of the soul after death. That said, there is some diversity of thought about what happens immediately after death. While nearly all Protestants believe that the individual retains its unique identity after death (unlike Eastern religions), some believe that the soul goes immediately to be with Christ in heaven, awaiting the Day of Judgment and a resurrected body. Others suggest that there is an intermediate time of "soul sleep," an unconscious waiting for the resurrection. Some believe that the souls of the dead proceed immediately on death either to heaven or hell. Still others argue that the temporality of this life versus the eternality of the life to come makes intermediate periods of time meaningless altogether.
Traditionally Protestants believe in a judgment day at the end of history. On this day all the dead from throughout human history will be resurrected, and will possess some sort of physical body that will resemble but yet be different from the body possessed during their earthly existence. Jesus' resurrection, described in all four Gospels, is the basis for this belief, and the apostle Paul emphasizes the resurrection, linking Christ's resurrection to the experience believers will have at the end of time. Paul insists that without the resurrection, Christian faith is meaningless (1 Cor. 15:12-19). At the final resurrection of the dead, the saints (or, the elect) enter heaven, while the damned are sent to hell. Heaven is a state of blessedness in the presence of God, something humans have not been able to experience since the fall in the Garden of Eden. Hell is a place of torment, as just punishment for sin. - Afterlife and Salvation

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

When the physical body dies, the spirit continues to live. In the spirit world, the spirits of the righteous “are received into a state of happiness, which is called paradise, a state of rest, a state of peace, where they shall rest from all their troubles and from all care, and sorrow” (Alma 40:12). A place called spirit prison is reserved for “those who [have] died in their sins, without a knowledge of the truth, or in transgression, having rejected the prophets” (Doctrine and Covenants 138:32). The spirits in prison are “taught faith in God, repentance from sin, vicarious baptism for the remission of sins, the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, and all other principles of the gospel that [are] necessary for them to know” (Doctrine and Covenants 138:33–34). If they accept the principles of the gospel, repent of their sins, and accept ordinances performed in their behalf in temples, they will be welcomed into paradise.
Because of the Atonement and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, physical death is only temporary: “As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:22). Everyone will be resurrected, meaning that every person’s spirit will be reunited with his or her body—“restored to their proper and perfect frame” and no longer subject to death (Alma 40:23; see also Alma 11:44–45). - Death, Physical (Overview)
Spirit World
The postmortal spirit world is a place where the spirits of those who have died live before the Resurrection. The spirit world consists of paradise, where the righteous dwell, and spirit prison, where those who were wicked in mortality dwell.
Overview
The postmortal spirit world is a place where the spirits of those who have died live before the Resurrection. The spirit world consists of paradise, where the righteous dwell, and spirit prison, where those who were wicked in mortality dwell.
President Brigham Young taught that the postmortal spirit world is on the earth, around us (see Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young [1997], 279).
Spirit beings have the same bodily form as mortals except that the spirit body is in perfect form (see Ether 3:16). Spirits carry with them from earth their attitudes of devotion or antagonism toward things of righteousness (see Alma 34:34). They have the same appetites and desires that they had when they lived on earth. All spirits are in adult form. They were adults before their mortal existence, and they are in adult form after death, even if they die as infants or children (see Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith [1998], 131–32).
The prophet Alma in the Book of Mormon taught about two divisions or states in the spirit world.
Paradise. According to the prophet Alma, the righteous spirits rest from earthly care and sorrow. Nevertheless, they are occupied in doing the work of the Lord. President Joseph F. Smith saw in a vision that immediately after Jesus Christ was crucified, He visited the righteous in the spirit world. He appointed messengers, gave them power and authority, and commissioned them to “carry the light of the gospel to them that were in darkness, even to all the spirits of men” (Doctrine and Covenants 138:30).
The Church is organized in the spirit world, and priesthood holders continue their responsibilities there (see Doctrine and Covenants 138:30). President Wilford Woodruff taught: “The same Priesthood exists on the other side of the veil. … Every Apostle, every Seventy, every Elder, etc., who has died in the faith as soon as he passes to the other side of the veil, enters into the work of the ministry” (Deseret News, Jan. 25, 1882, 818).
Spirit Prison. The Apostle Peter referred to the postmortal spirit world as a prison, which it is for some (see 1 Peter 3:18–20). In the spirit prison are the spirits of those who have not yet received the gospel of Jesus Christ. These spirits have agency and may be enticed by both good and evil. The spirits may progress as they learn gospel principles and live in accordance with them. The spirits in paradise can teach the spirits in prison (see Doctrine and Covenants 138). If they accept the gospel and the ordinances performed for them in the temples, they may leave the spirit prison and dwell in paradise.
Also in the spirit prison are those who rejected the gospel after it was preached to them either on earth or in the spirit prison. These spirits suffer in a condition known as hell. They have removed themselves from the mercy of Jesus Christ, who said, “Behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent; but if they would not repent they must suffer even as I; which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit” (Doctrine and Covenants 19:16–18). After suffering for their sins, they will be allowed, through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, to inherit the lowest degree of glory, which is the Telestial kingdom. - Spirit World

Jehovah's Witness

The Bible says: “The living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all.” (Ecclesiastes 9:5; Psalm 146:4) Therefore, when we die, we cease to exist. The dead can’t think, act, or feel anything.
“To dust you will return”
God explained what happens when we die when he spoke to the first man, Adam. Because Adam was disobedient, God said to him: “Dust you are and to dust you will return.” (Genesis 3:19) Before God created Adam “out of dust from the ground,” Adam did not exist. (Genesis 2:7) Likewise, when Adam died, he returned to dust and ceased to exist.
The same thing happens to those who die now. Speaking of both humans and animals, the Bible says: “They have all come to be from the dust, and they are all returning to the dust.” — Ecclesiastes 3:19, 20.
Death is not necessarily the end of everything
The Bible often compares death to sleep. (Psalm 13:3; John 11:11-14; Acts 7:60) A person who is fast asleep is unaware of what is happening around him. Likewise, the dead are not conscious of anything. Yet, the Bible teaches that God can awaken the dead as if from sleep and give them life again. (Job 14:13-15) For those whom God resurrects, death is not the end of everything. - What Happens When You Die?
What Is the Resurrection?
In the Bible, the word translated as “resurrection” comes from the Greek a·naʹsta·sis, which means “raising up” or “standing up again.” A person who is resurrected is raised up from death and restored to life as the person he was before.—1 Corinthians 15:12, 13.
Although the word “resurrection” is not in the Hebrew Scriptures, often called the Old Testament, the teaching appears there. Through the prophet Hosea, for example, God promised: “From the power of the Grave I will redeem them; from death I will recover them.”—Hosea 13:14; Job 14:13-15; Isaiah 26:19; Daniel 12:2, 13.
Where will people be resurrected? Some people are resurrected to life in heaven to rule as kings with Christ. (2 Corinthians 5:1; Revelation 5:9, 10) The Bible calls this “the first resurrection” and “the earlier resurrection,” both expressions implying that there is another resurrection to follow. (Revelation 20:6; Philippians 3:11) This later resurrection will be to life on earth, which the vast majority of those brought back to life will enjoy.—Psalm 37:29.
How are people resurrected? God grants Jesus the power to raise the dead. (John 11:25) Jesus will restore “all those in the memorial tombs” to life, each one with his unique identity, personality, and memories. (John 5:28, 29) Those resurrected to heaven receive a spirit body, while those resurrected to life on earth receive a healthy physical body, completely sound.—Isaiah 33:24; 35:5, 6; 1 Corinthians 15:42-44, 50.
Who will be resurrected? The Bible says that “there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.” (Acts 24:15) The righteous include faithful people, such as Noah, Sarah, and Abraham. (Genesis 6:9; Hebrews 11:11; James 2:21) The unrighteous include those who failed to meet God’s standards but did not have the opportunity to learn and follow them.
However, those who become so wicked that they are beyond reform will not be resurrected. When such ones die, they suffer permanent destruction with no hope of a return to life. — Matthew 23:33; Hebrews 10:26, 27.
When will the resurrection take place? The Bible foretold that the resurrection to heaven would take place during Christ’s presence, which began in 1914. (1 Corinthians 15:21-23) The resurrection to life on earth will occur during the Thousand Year Reign of Jesus Christ, when the earth will be transformed into a paradise.—Luke 23:43; Revelation 20:6, 12, 13.
Why is belief in the resurrection reasonable? The Bible provides detailed accounts of nine resurrections, each confirmed by eyewitnesses. (1 Kings 17:17-24; 2 Kings 4:32-37; 13:20, 21; Luke 7:11-17; 8:40-56; John 11:38-44; Acts 9:36-42; Acts 20:7-12; 1 Corinthians 15:3-6) Jesus’ resurrection of Lazarus is especially noteworthy, since Lazarus had been dead for four days and Jesus performed the miracle before a crowd of people. (John 11:39, 42) Even those who opposed Jesus could not deny the facts of the matter, so instead they plotted to kill both Jesus and Lazarus.—John 11:47, 53; 12:9-11.
The Bible shows that God has both the ability and the desire to bring back the dead. He keeps in his limitless memory a detailed record of each person he will resurrect by means of his almighty power. (Job 37:23; Matthew 10:30; Luke 20:37, 38) God is able to restore the dead to life, and he wants to! Describing the coming resurrection, the Bible says of God: “You will long for the work of your hands.” — Job 14:15.
Who Go to Heaven?
God selects a limited number of faithful Christians who, after their death, will be resurrected to life in heaven. (1 Peter 1:3, 4) Once they have been chosen, they must continue to maintain a Christian standard of faith and conduct in order not to be disqualified from receiving their heavenly inheritance. — Ephesians 5:5; Philippians 3:12-14.
What will those who go to heaven do there?
They will serve alongside Jesus as kings and priests for 1,000 years. (Revelation 5:9, 10; 20:6) They will form the “new heavens,” or heavenly government, that will rule over the “new earth,” or earthly society. Those heavenly rulers will help restore mankind to the righteous conditions that God originally intended.—Isaiah 65:17; 2 Peter 3:13.
How many will be resurrected to heaven?
The Bible indicates that 144,000 people will be resurrected to heavenly life. (Revelation 7:4) In the vision recorded at Revelation 14:1-3, the apostle John saw “the Lamb standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000.” In this vision, “the Lamb” represents the resurrected Jesus. (John 1:29; 1 Peter 1:19) “Mount Zion” represents the exalted position of Jesus and the 144,000 who rule with him in the heavens.—Psalm 2:6; Hebrews 12:22.
Those “who are called and chosen” to rule with Christ in the Kingdom are referred to as a “little flock.” (Revelation 17:14; Luke 12:32) This shows that they would be relatively few in comparison with the complete number of Jesus’ sheep. - John 10:16.

As for your subset questions (Can the dead communicate with each other? Can the dead communicate with the living?), I will pas over it superficially.
The Scriptures are very clear that sorcerers and mediums are not allowed to exist in Israel. They are considered an abomination in the eyes of God.

31You must not turn to mediums or spiritists; do not seek them out, or you will be defiled by them. I am the LORD your God. - Leviticus 19:31
You shall not permit a sorceress to live. - Exodus 22:18
10 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch.n11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. 12 For all that do these things are an abomination unto the Lord: and because of these abominations the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee. - Deuteronomy 18:10-12

Mediums, magicians, and others who practice occult arts might offer entertainment by means of deception, but some mediums legitimately communicate with either the dead or with demons. The point is that any spirit not from God comes from Satan.
Saul consulted the witch of Endor (1 Samuel 28).
During the trial of Joan of Arc, she admitted that both St. Catherine and St. Margaret communicated with her.


Is there anything unique to a christian marriage that non-christian marriages are deprived of? Are there any teachings that state that there is anything unique to a Christian marriage that non-Christian marriages are deprived of?

A slightly different question but similar enough:

Does a couple that "goes to city hall" and enters into (what they believe to be) a strictly legal agreement of marriage also unwittingly enter into the same holy covenant that Christian spouses have?

Along these lines, from the question: What is the moral status of common-law marriage?, Caleb states:

  Christianity even honors marriage as sacred when entered into by two
  non Christians with a purely secular profession. God's role in the
  covenant relationship is something we believe just is -- even if the
  parties involved ignore him.

(Could someone provide scriptural references for this assertion?)

Assuming what Caleb states is true, I understand the idea that a Christian marriage will have the privilege and benefits of working with God instead of against or in indifference to Him, as in a secular marriage. My question is not about the effect of the "quantity" of God in a marriage - rather, is there any special qualitative distinction between the two marriages? For example, the Holy Spirit dwells in a Christian, but not a non-Christian - is there anything analogous to this for the two kinds of marriage?

I'm mostly interested in this from a protestant perspective. It goes without saying, but in order to minimize opinion and open discussion, please derive any answers from scriptural references.

It may be helpful to do a little set up first. There is a difference between indicative and imperative statements. An indicative is a statement of fact; there is no ought in it. The chair is brown; the ship is tilting, etc. An imperative is a command; it tells what we must do. Close the door; turn off the tv, and so on. Paul says, "'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. (Eph 5:31-32)" He's not saying that this is the way it ought to be, but that this is what marriage is, what it means fundamentally. As he goes on, he fleshes out the picture with instruction (imperatives) for husbands to love their wives and for wives to submit to their husbands.

Every marriage is a picture of Christ and his bride, the church. The scripture makes no distinction between good and bad marriages in this regard, whether heathen couples or believers. All marriages proclaim to the world how Christ relates to his church. Because of sin and rebellion, many of these pictures are slanderous lies concerning Christ. But a husband can never stop talking about Christ and the church by how he acts. If he is obedient to God, he is preaching the truth; if he does not love his wife, he is speaking apostasy and lies – but he is always talking.

In another sense, a "generational " or "covenantal" sense, there is a difference. Paul says, "If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. (1 Cor 7:13-14)" So in this sense, an unbelieving couple would be outside the covenant body of Christ, while a couple with even one believer sanctifies, or covers the children and they are counted as covenantal members. This is not to say that they are 'saved' but that they are connected to the body covenantally.


What kinds of supernatural beings are in the Bible? The Bible mentions a number of supernatural beings, starting with the most commonly known ones - God, angels, spirits, but there are also ones that appear less often, like witches (Witch of Endor), or giants (Nephilim).

Is there a comprehensive list of supernatural beings that appear in the Bible along with descriptions of what they are?

EDIT:

As for defining supernatural, lets assume anything that is not part of the natural world, that is, grounded in reality outside of religion. Humans are natural, animals are natural, people worshipping other gods (like wiccans or baalists) are natural, people performing miracles (like Witch of Endor) are supernatural, just like angels, half angels, spirits, etc. In the end, anything not conforming to natural laws is supernatural.

The definition of supernatural is pretty important here.  If it refers to anything that is not in the physical world, then angels and demons could be considered supernatural.  If it refers to anything outside the scope of common experience to modern society, then the Nephilim could be considered supernatural.

Perhaps a good definition for supernatural would be anything that is outside the physical universe of time, space, and matter.  In that case, only God is supernatural, since even angels and demons seem to exist within the physical universe.  Most often, they are hidden from our view, but not always.

If the definition is expanded to refer to any beings for which earth is not their home, then angels and demons are added to the list.

Witches exist today.  They are people who practice certain rituals and such.  They are not supernatural themselves, but they seek to facilitate demonic powers, which can be considered supernatural.  So, the powers they seek to use are supernatural, but they themselves are natural.

The Nephilim could very well be normal human beings.  It is really speculation to firmly classify them one way or the other, since we just aren't told enough about them.

So, God is supernatural.  Angels and demons could also be considered supernatural, and this would include the Seraphim, Cherubim, and other angelic beings mentioned in Scripture.  Outside of that, I don't really know of any beings that are considered supernatural.


Why does any Archbishop get to decide if alligator is okay for Lent? NPR ran an interesting piece about the saga of whether or not Catholics could eat alligator on Fridays during Lent.  According to the story, an alligator merchant by the name of Jim Piculas advocated in a letter to Archibishop Gregory Aymond for permission to consider alligator as seafood, and thus exempt from the prohibition on Friday meat consumption.

Now, aside from the giggles on the matter, what authority does the Archbishop of New Orleans have to set out the orthopractic model of Catholic belief in New Orleans?  I understand that the Bishop of Rome has the authority, when speaking ex cathedra, to promulugate doctrine - but I've never heard that other Bishops have this right.

In declaring a reptile equivalent to a fish, the Archbishop seems to have made a fairly significant theological interpretation.  What gives him the authority to do so?

The appropriate Canon law says:

  Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays [...] (emphasis mine).

In other words, the rules say that the Archbishop has the authority to decide what can be eaten on Fridays in his diocese (he doesn't have to declare alligator to be 'seafood' - that's just a media invention). That doesn't of course mean his decisions apply to all of Catholicism.

See also this question.


Did Martin Luther know Hebrew or Greek? I know that Martin Luther knew Latin and German, but did he know other languages? For example, did he know Greek or Hebrew (I mean those Greek and Hebrew that the Bible is written in)?

Luther did translate the bible to what is known as the Luther Bible from old Greek, old Hebrew and Aramaic sources - not the latin translations that were widely used with the catholic church in Germany.
Here are the two hints from the wikipedia article:

He used Erasmus' second edition (1519) of the Greek New Testament, known as the Textus Receptus.
[...] by 1534 he completed his translation of the old and new testaments from Hebrew and Greek into the vernacular [...]

Luther was more familiar with Hebrew Greek than with Greek Hebrew which is why his translations received help by others - especially Philipp Melanchthon.
Luther must have known at least German, Latin, Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic.


How are conflicting views concerning latae sententiae excommunications resolved in the Catholic Church? One might identify the real-world problem behind this question. I have
  tried to put it forth without naming anyone involved in such situation
  and instead posed it as an imaginary situation. Please answer in a
  general way and not by pointing at any specific instance, person or
  group.

Imagine the following situation in the Catholic Church: Some catholic commits an offense which is punishable with a latae sententiae exommunication according to canon law.

As I understand the offender will (at least if the offense is somehow public) be advised by some authority (e.g. the pope or the local bishop) that his actions are leading him into excommunication and that he should stop it.

Now let's further imagine that the offender himself argues that his actions were out of grave necessity. In this case he would not be excommunicated latae sententiae (again, according to my understanding of the matter). He thus continues committing the same offense out of perceived necessity.

On the other hand, the relevant authority (pope/bishop) does not accept his arguments and continues to put forth that the offender is excommunicated as long as the offense continues.

This might now lead to a "but he said"-situation where one group claims that the person in question is and the other group that he is not excommunicated, thus leading to major problems concerning the unity of the church.

My Question: In such a situation, what mechanism is there to create clarity about the status (excommunicated or not) of the offender for himself and the public?

This is a basic case of basic canon law. There is no room for 'my opinion' or 'their opinion.'

Canon 1323.
The following are not subject to a penalty when they have violated a law or precept:
1° a person who has not yet completed the sixteenth year of age;
2° a person who without negligence was ignorant that he or she violated a law or precept; inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance;
3° a person who acted due to physical force or a chance occurrence which the person could not foresee or, if foreseen, avoid;
4° a person who acted coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls;
5° a person who acted with due moderation against an unjust aggressor for the sake of legitimate self defense or defense of another;
6° a person who lacked the use of reason, without prejudice to the prescripts of cann. 1324, §1, n. 2 and 1325;
7° a person who without negligence thought that one of the circumstances mentioned in nn. 4 or 5 was present.
Canon 1324.
§1 The perpretrator of a violation is not exempted from penalty, but the penalty prescribed in the law or precept must be diminished, or a penance substituted in its place, if the offence was committed by:
1° one who had only an imperfect use of reason;
2° one who was lacking the use of reason because of culpable drunkenness or other mental disturbance of a similar kind;
3° one who acted in the heat of passion which, while serious, nevertheless did not precede or hinder all mental deliberation and consent of the will, provided that the passion itself had not been deliberately stimulated or nourished
4° a minor who has completed the sixteenth year of age;
5° one who was compelled by grave fear, even if only relative, or by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience, if the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls;
6° one who acted in lawful self-defence or defence of another against an unjust aggressor, but did not observe due moderation;
7° one who acted against another person who was gravely and unjustly provocative;
8° one who erroneously, but culpably, thought that some one of the circumstances existed which are mentioned in Can. 1323, nn. 4 or 5;
9° one who through no personal fault was unaware that a penalty was attached to the law or precept;
10° one who acted without full imputability, provided it remained grave.
§2 A judge can do the same if there is any other circumstance present which would reduce the gravity of the offence.
§3 In the circumstances mentioned in §1, the offender is not bound by a latae sententiae penalty.

You said,

On the other hand, the relevant authority (pope/bishop) does not accept his arguments and continues to put forth that the offender is excommunicated as long as the offense continues.

The pope may be the supreme judge (i.e. as to having final say, not as to be being the best or most prudent judge of matters), but he is a judge nonetheless: since latae sententiae is defined in canon law, commenting or declaring anything concerning that penalty stands or falls on whether it is what canon law prescribes, since "x falls under latae sententiae" is an assertion—the pope can't make something true by simply asserting it. If the pope says, 'the book of Genesis says in verse 78 of chapter 90...' there doesn't suddenly become a 90th chapter of Genesis because the pope asserted there is a 90th chapter of Genesis. Likewise, he cannot say 'x falls under latae sententiae' if he in fact does not according to canon law. Moreover, such a mistaken assertion does not automatically convert into a directly imposed excommunication (ferendae sententiae).
What you describe is simply a pope who is not going by canon law, which protects the assumed innocence principle when considering their subjective experience/declared motives (Can. 1234.8). To ignore a declared subjective motive is to ignore canon law 1234.

In such a situation, what mechanism is there to create clarity about the status (excommunicated or not) of the offender for himself and the public?

There is no other recourse (apart from making an argument from reason, perhaps) apart from simply pointing to established law.


Is an action morally good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is good? The christian morality derives from God, and God is benevolent so whatever he commands is morally good. Does that mean that anything God does or commands is morally right? Or does God only act and command that which is morally good?

If it is the former, would any act, no matter how despicable it would be to our current moral standards, be morally good, because God commands it? Or is there a moral standard independent from God, and God only commands what is morally good according to that independent standard?

There is no moral standard apart from the person of God.

God is not Himself subjected to some outside standard of reference, He is the standard that we reference. Since we also know that He is good, we can be certain that nothing He commands will ever bee morally despicable. @Joel Coehoorn nailed in in a comment. Yes, actions are morally good because God commands them and what God commands is morally good because it was Him that commanded it.

If something comes up that bothers our consciences we have several possibilities to consider.

Our own moral compases may be corrupt.
We are too limited in our experience to judge Him.
We mis-heard Him or were deceived; the thing that bothers us wasn't a command from God at all.


The founder of Zion's Watch Tower Charles Taze Russell made the following statements and now directly contradict new information by the organization One of the statements is from the November 1879 Watch Tower page 48.
https://i.imgur.com/y6dOdXe.jpg Mr.Russell clearly states that all the angels including Michael are to worship Jesus and I agree with him.

My question has to do with the organization’s so called  "New Light" stance and how do they determine that "New Light" makes void so-called old light statements? Mr.Russell clearly states that Jesus should be worshiped and that Jesus is "NOT" Michael the archangel.

Mr. Russell also made the following statement from the February 1881 Watch Tower on page 188. https://i.imgur.com/a1q1mnG.jpg He clearly states that, "New light never extinguishes older "light," but adds to it. He also says, "So is it with the light of truth; the true increase is by adding to, not by substituting one for the other." Here again I agree with him. These two quotes by Mr.Russell are from primary sources that I personally have in my possession.

What does God say about His word? Isaiah 40:8, "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of God stands forever." Psalm 119:89, "Forever, O Lord, Thy word is settled in heaven." And John 17:17, "Sanctify them in Thy truth, Thy word is truth."

In summary, what new light did you receive and from where that teaches that Jesus is Michael the archangel which directly contradicts your founder? Moreover, God's word does not contradict itself and God's word is truth and stands forever.

I want to edit what I posted because "New Light" has just became available. The discussion of this thread has somewhat changed to the subject of Mr.Russell and his role of whether or not he is the founder of "Zion's Watch Tower." The following is proof that he was. https://i.imgur.com/lyvQH6p.jpg

Now that this is "settled" I am still waiting for my question to be addressed? What new light did you receive and from where that teaches that Jesus is Michael the archangel which directly contradicts your founder?

The organization of Jehovah's Witnesses is guided by the Governing Body.
In contrast to most other religions, the Governing Body does not claim to be inspired or infallible.

The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible. Therefore, it can err in doctrinal matters or in organizational direction. In fact, the Watch Tower Publications Index includes the heading “Beliefs Clarified,” which lists adjustments in our Scriptural understanding since 1870.
Watchtower February 2017 p.26 paragraph 12

Therefore, there is no 'magical' or 'divine' inspiration or change of dogmas because there are no dogmas. There are sometimes changes in understanding. Before some things were understood in a different way than now. And maybe in some time in the future, they will be understood in another way. The point is that because the Governing Body does not claim inspiration or infallibility, there is no big conflict if they change the understanding. As imperfect people, they can be wrong. Like mature imperfect people, they can admit when they are wrong, and correct their point of view.

“The Governing Body gives all credit for the success of this organization to Jehovah and the appointed head of the congregation, Jesus Christ. We are just imperfect men trying to follow the lead of Christ and the Holy Spirit.”
JW Broadcast July 2017, timestamp 12:18

So as they are all "imperfect men", there is no conflict or problem, with a change of "light" or understanding, between themselves, or previous members of the governing body, or Mr. Russell, or any other imperfect man. Problems only occur because people and also some JWs expect them to be infallible. It seems a deep desire of many believers to worship or blindly follow human religious leaders. Some people can not imagine having a religion where the leaders do not claim to have divine inspiration. I personally think it is very liberating, that leaders of my religion are aware that they are imperfect, that their organization is imperfect, and that they are not too proud to even keep a list tracking changes in understanding throughout history. In the same video linked above a member of the Governing Body quotes the line: “this is the best imperfect organization on earth.” (timestamp 14:17)
The topic of the new understanding of the identity of the Archangel Michael is addressed in the Watchtower 1984 12/15 pp. 26-29 ‘Michael the Great Prince’—Who Is He?

For many years Jehovah’s Witnesses have taught that Michael is a heavenly name for the only-begotten Son of God, who was named Jesus while on earth. However, most other religions view Michael as one of several archangels, as if there were more than one archangel.

More specifically in this paragraph.

"We learn from Jude that Michael had the post of archangel. In fact, he was the archangel, since no other archangel is mentioned in the Bible, nor does the Bible use “archangel” in the plural. “Archangel” means “Chief of the angels.” (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament) Among God’s spirit servants, only two names are associated with authority over angels: Michael and Jesus Christ. (Matthew 16:27; 25:31; 2 Thessalonians 1:7) This, too, argues that Jesus and Michael are the same."

More information can be found in the Watchtower 1984 12/15 pp. 26-29, the article is about 4 pages. But again there are no new Bible scriptures, the Governing Body did not have a dream or vision. They just changed their understanding. These changes often take many years' time from initiating to publication. More information on that can be found in the talk of Mr. David H. Splane (a member of the Governing Body) in the JW Broadcast of August 2016 (timestamp 18:15).


Has the Categorical Imperative ever been denounced by the Catholic Church Lots of enlightenment thinking (particularly those leading towards too much collectivism or capitalism, freethought and rationalism) have been denounced by the Popes and the Saints and the Bishops and lots of other people,  but has Immanuel Kant ever been denounced?   I only took one introductory Philosophy class in college and the only system that I remotely took a fancy too was the Categorical Imperative.

What I want to know is, in a broad sense, has it been found lacking in some way by the philosophical arm of the Catholic Church?  It seems to me a great way of refuting a number of the moral evils of the day (from littering to gay "marriage"), but is a Catholic justified in using it as a justification for anything?

I'd prefer any answer not go in to great detail about Kant himself; just the very basic nature of "something that is good for me, should be good for everyone".  Because it sounds to me like proto-personalism.

Kant's categorical imperative is very similar to the Protestant view that everyone is his or her own highest authority.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia article "Categorical Imperative":

  The merits of Kant's categorical imperative are said to consist in this: that it firmly establishes the reign of reason; elevates the dignity of man by subjecting in him sensibility to reason and making rational nature free, supreme, and independent; overcomes egoism by forbidding action from self-interest; and upholds morality by the highest authority. But the theist philosopher and the Christian theologian must needs take another view. Man is not an end in himself, but is essentially subordinate to God as his ultimate end and supreme good; nor is he autonomous, but is necessarily subject to God as his supreme Lord and lawgiver. Man, conceived as a law unto himself and an end in himself, is emancipated from God as his master and separated from Him as his supreme good; conceived, moreover, as autonomous and independent of any higher authority, he is deified. This is not building up true and lofty morality, but is its complete overthrow; for the basis of morality is God as the ultimate end, highest good, and supreme lawgiver. Kant utterly ignores the nature of both intellect and will. Human reason does not enact the moral law, but only voices and proclaims it as the enactment of a higher power above man, and it is not from the proclaiming voice that the law derives its binding force, but from the majesty above that intimates it to us through our conscience.


Did Pope Francis declare that according to the teaching of the Catholic Church capital punishment is intrinsically evil? The Internet is full of news that Pope Francis has amended the Catechism of the Catholic Church to forbid capital punishment under all circumstances.

One thing remains unclear for me, however:

Did Pope Francis indeed declare the capital punishment to be intrisincally evil, that is, sinful under any and all circumstances, even if / when effective incarcerination is impossible?
Or did he (merely?) state that since in contemporary times effective incarcerination is possible, it should always be used instead of capital punishment?

That second interpretation seems to be hinted by these words:

  Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.

However, these words seem to hint the first interpretation:

  the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”

The distinction seems to matter because the question whether in contemporary times the States can, in all, even most extreme cases, effectively protect the lives of their citizens without capital punishment seems to not belong to the scope of "morals and faith", which is the scope of the teaching of the Church. In particular, I feel, this seems dubious in states where there is war or where the influences of organized crime are beyond control.

Context that I still feel belongs to the question: The way I used to be getting this (maybe wrongly) the Church was teaching that physical violence, while undesireable, was a rightful response to someone's unjust aggresion, whether the threat posed by this unjust aggression was immediate (as if, someone is shooting at innocent people) or recurrent (as if, an enemy state is preparing an invasion against us - hence even preventive war may be morally acceptable in certain cases; or as if a Mafia boss cannot be guaranteed to be succesfully imprisoned for a prolonged time because of his out of control influences, so the State sentences him to capital punishment before his men rescue him from prison or a corrupt judge frees him, either would most likely happen if he hasn't been executed already).

However, I have feeling, in many cases, including this one, Pope Francis amends this part of the teaching of the Church, saying that physical violence may only be permissible as a response to immediate threat, but never to a recurring threat. Which is why it may still be permissible for a police officer to shoot down a Mafia hitman if in any other case this Mafia hitman would shoot down the police officer instead; but it is not permissible to sentence said hitman to capital punishment even if because of the ongoing war with Mafia rebels he cannot be effectively imprisoned for a prolonged time. Is this interpretation correct?

Did Pope Francis declare that according to the teaching of the Catholic Church capital punishment is intrinsically evil?

The short answer is no.

The choice of words regarding the Roman Pontiff's decision to try to abolish the death penalty is not strong enough to raise the death penalty to the fact that it is intrinsically evil in all situations.

The pope stated the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person.”

According to the Cambridge Dictionary inadmissible is defined as the following:

  Unable to be accepted, esp. in a law court:

  The lie detector test was inadmissible as evidence in the case.

Or if one prefers the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

  Not able to be allowed or considered in a legal case : not admissible

What is an intrinsic evil?

  Intrinsic evil is something which is always evil, no matter the circumstances or rationale. If an act is intrinsically evil, it cannot be justified by the intention or by the circumstances (the environment, social pressure, emergency situation, etc.)

Historically speaking the Church has allowed the use executions as a means for courts to protect its' citizens against serious evil doers.

What is the Catholic Church's historical position on capital punishment: how did we get here?

  Some issues allow for a diversity of opinion, and Catholics are permitted leeway in endorsing or opposing particular policies. This is the case with the questions of when to go to war and when to apply the death penalty. Though the Church urges caution regarding both of these issues, it acknowledges that the state has the right to employ them in some circumstances (CCC 2309, 2267).

  Pope Benedict XVI, when he was still Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, spoke of this in a document dealing with when Catholics may receive Communion:

  "Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the -application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia" (WRHC 3). - Five Non-Negotiable Issues.

Pope Francis has yet to state that capital punishment is grounds for a Catholic not being to able to receive Holy Communion if one partakes in some legal form with a lawfully convicted criminal's execution. Therefore capital punishment is not an intrinsically evil act.

  Even the new wording of the Catechism, as approved by Pope Francis, does not quite require Catholics to disapprove of the death penalty in all circumstances. The Pope’s new language does not contradict the time-honored Church teaching that the state has the authority to invoke the death penalty in appropriate circumstances. (That traditional teaching was clearly upheld, in the same section 2267 of the Catechism, even after Pope John Paul II called for a tighter restriction on executions.)

  Nor does the revised Catechism teach that the use of capital punishment is intrinsically immoral. - Pope Francis and the death penalty: another dose of confusion


Why did the mid-early church consider the Gospel of Matthew to be reliable? The Gospel of Matthew is now considered to be important, however the 1st century and 2nd century references to it are surprisingly confusing and sparse.

Which authors in the 1st and 2nd century refer to it unambiguously? For each author, please note the following:

When they wrote.
Whether they cite the Gospel of Matthew's content.
Whether they refer to it as the Gospel of Matthew.
Whether they seem to have considered that it was written by Matthew the apostle.
What criteria they use for acceptance as canonical.

Examples

Tertullian seems to have written ~190AD (?), but doesn't associate the contents of what is now the Gospel of Matthew with Matthew the person, and instead associated it with Luke.
Clement (end of 1st century?) seems to quote Matthew, but does not say it was written by Matthew, or indeed give it a name or authorship of any sort.
Papias (150AD) mentions a Gospel of Matthew, but gives the impression that it was written in Hebrew and does not cite it, so doesn't leave us certain that he was talking about the same one.
Iranaeus (190AD) gives what is most similar to the modern account of the authorship of the Gospel of Matthew. (I assume that he cites it so that we can be sure that he saw what we see in the gospel of Matthew?)

So: Are the above correct? Are there other 1st and 2nd century sources that refer to and/or cite the Gospel of Matthew and its authorship? What criteria did they use for determining authorship and canonicity?

Below is my answer to the original question: "What are the arguments for Matthew's canonicity that don't appeal to Matthean authorship or the authority of the church?"  I have leaving it as is, because it is still valid answer to that part of the question (and good information), although not all of it makes sense as a reply to the edited question.

First, I think it is important to emphasize that no church leader or set of leaders sat down one day and decided that X was in and Y was out.  Instead it was decided over time by the Church (fellowship of all believers) through use of some sources and disuse of others. Early leaders, of course, had some influence over what entered the canon, but no single person, congregation, or group of people decided this.
We have some extant writings about what criteria were used to decide matters.  For example, Tertullian, writing in objection to Marcion (Contra Marcion, Book 4, Ch 5), says that his followers "subvert [the gospel] by shameless tampering" and says

Such are the summary arguments which we use, when we take up arms against heretics for the faith of the gospel, maintaining both that order of periods, which rules that a late date is the mark of forgers, and that authority of churches which lends support to the tradition of the apostles; because truth must needs precede the forgery, and proceed straight from those by whom it has been handed on.

Various factors enter into the criteria recorded by various Church fathers:

is the document internally consistent,
is it teaching orthodoxy,
was it accepted by early churches,
and Apostolic authorship is seen as key.

This can be seen, for example, in the dismissal of an elder who confessed to writing The Acts of Paul and Thecla (Tertullian, On Baptism, Ch 17), despite the work being perfectly orthodox. In short, there was no such thing as a "pious fraud" who was accepted by the church. If the early Church believed Matthew was not written by Matthew, it would have never been accepted. You cannot separate the two ideas.
Turning specifically to Matthew, it was the most quoted NT work during the first two centuries and was rejected by no known group, heretical or orthodox, except for Marcion (who rejected all but his own edited versions of Paul's letters and Luke). If any work can be considered canonical by the early church, it is Matthew.  It was not accepted because of the testimony of Papias (and just because he is the first extant witness of Matthean authorship, does not mean he was the first), but rather was universally viewed as coming from Matthew the apostle.
I would strongly caution against rejecting a work because of "difficulties".  Of course if you remove any gospel, the number of apparent contradictions will decrease.  However, minor contradictions show the reliability of text, not the opposite.  Real eyewitness testimony is marked by such differences; faked or non-independent accounts are not.  I would also be very cautious about accepting pseudographical claims lightly.  The case lies on a few far from certain facts and stand contrary to every source in antiquity.  I cannot go into detail here (ask another question if you like), but suffice it to say that the burden of proof should lie with those claiming pseudography (due to the frequent and early testimony to the contrary and the demonstrated disdain for the practice) and the case has not been proven.
In summary, to answer your question: besides apostolic authorship and church authority, canonicity can be argued on early and frequent use, the acceptance by early believers, internal consistency, and the orthodoxy of Matthew. However, in the views of the early Church, apostolic authorship is also essential.