What is the biblical basis for NOT keeping a literal physical Sabbath rest every seventh day? I don't have hard statistics at hand right now, but I think that it's common sense knowledge that most Christians do not adhere to a literal, physical Sabbath rest every seventh day of the week like Sabbatarians do. Instead, I've heard many times informal explanations saying that Christians now enjoy a spiritual sabbath-rest in Christ instead, which is daily, not weekly.
Why are Christians exempt from the mandate to keep a literal physical Sabbath rest every seventh day according to non-Sabbatarians? What is the biblical basis for this view?

The need for a literal, physical Sabbath rest began at the Fall in the Garden of Eden when God cursed the ground for the sake of Mankind:

“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.” - Genesis 3:17-19

Prior to that event Adam enjoyed the provision of the produce of all of the trees in the Garden save one:

The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it.
And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” - Genesis 2:15-17

Adam was created to be a servant and, as the above verse shows, he had work and responsibilities in the garden of God but this work was not toil and vanity, for those (and the need for physical rest) entered as a result of the curse and expulsion from the Garden.
Since God rested from all of His creative labors on the seventh day, by which we are to understand a lasting rest, not as though He commenced work again on day eight, we can envision Adam working in the Garden during God's Sabbath rest.
Jesus Christ, as the second Adam, also went about doing the works of God, not only on the weekly Sabbath prescribed by the Law (many examples too numerous to list) but also always during that rest of God's perpetual seventh day.
When Adam was expelled from the Garden he was essentially expelled from God's presence and rest.  Ruined by sin and toiling in a cursed creation apart from the presence of God, Mankind needs not only a prescription for physical rest but a prescription for remembrance of the Creator and Sustainer of all despite the curse.  Herein lies the reason that God's people, when placed under the tutelage of the Law to bring them to Christ and, through Christ, back to Himself were given a weekly rest Day.  The weekly Sabbath, like all of the Law, is intended to bring us to Christ:

Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one. Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. - Galatians 3:19-26

Christ has declared Himself to be Lord of the Sabbath and this declaration is given in explanation of why His disciples do what is unlawful on the (weekly) Sabbath:

But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.” He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? Or have you not read in the Law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless? I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.” - Matthew 12:2-8

In saying that He is greater than the temple (by which we can infer the Law and the Levitical system) it is to be understood that the Sabbath that He is Lord of is that Sabbath rest of God which is greater than the weekly Sabbath of the Law (this, incidentally, is strong Trinitarian evidence).  If He is Lord of the greater rest then He is assuredly Lord of the lesser.

And he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.” - Mark 2:27-28

In saying that the (weekly) Sabbath was made for man, not man for the (weekly) Sabbath he demonstrates that weekly Sabbath keeping was not the original purpose of Mankind but rather to live within the perpetual Sabbath rest of God.
In this way the writer of Hebrews indicates that there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God (under the Law) to enter:

Therefore, while the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us fear lest any of you should seem to have failed to reach it. For good news came to us just as to them, but the message they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith with those who listened. For we who have believed enter that rest, as he has said, “As I swore in my wrath, ‘They shall not enter my rest,’” although his works were finished from the foundation of the world. For he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way: “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works.” And again in this passage he said, “They shall not enter my rest.” Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience, again he appoints a certain day, “Today,” saying through David so long afterward, in the words already quoted, “Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts.” For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken of another day later on. So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, for whoever has entered God's rest has also rested from his works as God did from his. - Hebrews 4:1-10

Since

It is God's Sabbath rest that remains for God's people to (re)enter
That rest is God's intended purpose for Man
That rest is greater than the weekly Sabbath rest of the Law
Jesus is Lord of both and violates the lesser while honoring the greater
The greater rest represents restored fellowship with God

Those who are "in Christ" may demonstrate the greatest understanding of the Lordship of Jesus Christ by de-emphasizing the lesser and striving for the greater.  Jesus has come to bring us into the pre-fall rest of God's perpetual Sabbath.

This does not indicate that weekly Sabbath keeping is inherently wrong for Christians but that insistence upon it in order to "be" a Christian is, for then the lesser (Sabbath) is elevated above the greater (Lord of Sabbath):

As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions.
One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables.
Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. - Romans 14:1-6


Matthew 24:15-20, If we can't go back and get our clothes, where are we to go? I'm horrible at asking questions on here, so please bear with me.  As a Protestant, I'm struggling with finding answers to two questions dealing with Matthew 24:15-20.

In Matthew 24:17-18 (NASB), we are told:

  17 "Whoever is on the housetop must not go down to get
  the things out that are in his house. 18 Whoever is in the field must
  not turn back to get his cloak."

Lot's wife didn't take God's word literally and paid for it.  I don't want to make the same mistake.  Obviously we have to go somewhere because verse 20 says:

  "pray your flight not be on the sabbath."

According to the Protestant perspective, where are we supposed to go?

Also, why do we have to pray our flight isn't on the sabbath?

Apparently, "flight" during the sabbath would cause us to work, which according to John is not good.  Are we still supposed to keep the sabbath holy and not work? Is the sabbath still holy?  I thought we didn't "have" to observe the sabbath anymore.

The Protestant view is that there was a literal application when the Romans laid siege to Jerusalem, then withdrew unexpectedly.  That was the moment to escape and flee to the mountains because when they returned in A.D. 70, the Temple and everyone in Jerusalem were utterly destroyed.

The warning not to stop and pack up possessions was meant to imply urgency.  It meant to get on with it and get out while the going was good!  The reality was that there would have been time to grab warm clothes or pack food for the journey.

To have traveled during winter, when the River Jordan would have been flooded, would have been very difficult.  Likewise, to travel on the Jewish Sabbath (from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday) would almost certainly have meant breaking the law. Again, given the time gap between the first siege and the second siege, there would have been time to get out without breaking the law.
As you point out, Christians are not under the Jewish Sabbath Law.

The future application of this prophecy applies to the tribulation period when the Antichrist and the False Prophet are identified.  Before Christ Jesus returns the elect will be gathered and taken up.  If, as I suspect, Jesus' warning not to delay applies to the rapture, then it simply means we must be alert and flee when the moment arises.  We are not to dally, looking to secure our property or pack a suitcase!  Whenever the call comes, we must be prepared to drop everything and go where we are bidden.

The Bible does not give us specific details, and frankly, we don't need to know the details.  We just need to be on the side of Christ and know that we belong to Him.


Do the ancient churches built by the Portuguese have a statue of mermaid on the façade? My parish church (St Mary's Forane Church, Muttom, Cherthala, Kerala ) in southern India, believed to have been built by the Portuguese  in the 16th Century has, among other images,  two built-in statues of  mermaids on the façade. Though the church is just a few miles away from the sea, mermaids have not been a subject of our folklore. Presumably, the designer of the church followed some tradition of his homeland. I wish to know if the ancient churches in Portugal have similar statues of mermaid on their façade. If  they do, what is the origin of such an artwork?

Do the ancient churches built by the Portuguese have a statue of mermaid on the façade?

The short answer is yes , but they are difficult to locate.

For example, the Jerónimos Monastery or Hieronymites Monastery, is a former monastery of the Order of Saint Jerome near the Tagus river in the parish of Belem and it's façade has mermaids on it.

  Engravings of sea mermaids writhe on the façade of the Jerónimos Monastery, a World Heritage site where da Gama’s body now rests. - Road Trip Bliss: Portugal’s Southern Coast

If one looks carefully one can see the mermaids hereand here.

  In the Middle Ages a chapel had been erected on this site in honor of Our Lady, Star of the Sea. This maritime association with the Virgin was important since ships were anchored nearby. Prince Henry the Navigator ordered that additions be built to the small chapel and then renamed it Santa Maria de Belém. - Jerónimos Monastery

I have also been able to locate an image of a mermaid carved in a capital at Travanca Monastery in Portugal.

  Mermaids carved in a capital at Travanca Monastery. - Portuguese Romanesque architecture

In any case I would like to make a few remarks on this subject at hand.

First of all, we are not to associate any European mermaid art in Catholic churches with the imaginary mermaid saint: Muirgen. It is absolutely bizarre how some ancient folklore cam make a mermaid a saint. The Mermaid Saint story or legend is imaginary, yet it stresses the importance of baptism and as such may have been used as a teaching tool. No such  St. Muirgen the Mermaid exists.

Medieval mermaids in European architecture is not as uncommon as one would think and this would certainly include Portugal. This is more of a Western European subject matter than merely just Portugal or Spain.

  A strange part of the story of the medieval mermaid, is that images of mermaids are fairly common in old churches. They were part of the usual depictions of temptations and other vices that men were to resist. - The Medieval Mermaid

Here are some examples:

The Zennor Mermaid

  Zennor church is famous for a carved medieval chair, or bench end, displayed in the south side chapel. The carving is generally dated to between 1400-1500. The carving shows a mermaid carrying a comb and mirror.

  In later images the quince has become a mirror, a symbol of heartlessness and vanity, which rather twists the original meaning. In the medieval period it was a common Cornish custom to perform 'miracle plays', in which the mermaid was used to represent the dual nature of Christ; just as the mermaid was both fish and human, Christ was both God and man. You can still see medieval wall paintings of mermaids in other Cornish churches, such as Altarnun and Breage, but only at Zennor is there a surviving mermaid carving. - Zennor Church and the Mermaid of Zennor

A mermaid upon a roof boss in the presbytery of Exeter Cathedral (former Catholic Cathedral)

The Mermaid and the Symbolism of the Fish in Art , Literature and Legendary Lore has this to add to our subject:

  Of the occurrence of the Mermaid in Ecclesiastical decoration, a few words will suffice. It is one of the most common of subjects on the carved misereres of our cathedrals and churches, and is also found sculptured on brackets, bosses, doorways, and capitals of pillars.

The mermaid lore is symbolic of temptation and losing one's soul forever:

  The popularity of the medieval mermaid continued and in the Middle Ages the church decided to do something about it. They changed the mermaid into a symbol of lust and temptation. The story of Odysseus and the sirens was changed so that the sirens were now mermaids. Odysseus' ship was a symbol of the church, and it's mast the cross of Jesus. The mermaids were the temptations that call men away from the church. - The Medieval Mermaid


How did the livestock of the Egyptians die twice? Yesterday we were studying the ten plagues in Exodus. One of the things that confused us was this. Exodus 9:6 reads:

  6 And the next day the Lord did it: All the livestock of the Egyptians died, but not one animal belonging to the Israelites died. [NIV]

This means, the Egyptians did not have any livestock left. But in verses 20 and 21 we read:

  20 Those officials of Pharaoh who feared the word of the Lord hurried to bring their slaves and their livestock inside. 21 But those who ignored the word of the Lord left their slaves and livestock in the field.

Wait, which livestock? Wasn't the livestock already dead?

And in verse 25 we read that the livestock was indeed killed.

  25 Throughout Egypt hail struck everything in the fields—both people and animals; it beat down everything growing in the fields and stripped every tree.

So we discussed this, and thought well, maybe the ten plagues took place over a longer time so the Egyptians could restore their livestock. However this seems not really possible as Moses did die at 120 years old (Deuteronomy 34:7) where Moses was 80 years old (Exodus 7:7) when he was called by God.

What would be a good explanation for this conflict?

Answers in Genesis, an Apologetics site dedicated to defending the Bible as inerrant, gives five "reasonable" possibilities:  Bear in mind that the real answer is, "we don't know for sure", and we can't answer what did happen. The best we can do is offer plausible explanations of what might have happened.  Typically this is done using common rules behind resolving alleged Biblical discrepancies.  So, from an Apologetic standpoint, their answers do offer plausible resolutions to the apparent conflict.

  First, Exodus 9:3 states, “"Behold, the hand of the Lord will be on
  your cattle in the field, on the horses, on the donkeys, on the
  camels, on the oxen, and on the sheep—a very severe pestilence."”
  Surprisingly, this verse does not mention one of the most important
  domestic animals at that time—the goat.1 Therefore, it is possible
  that all of the livestock except goats were killed in the first plague
  on the livestock (fifth plague overall), and in the second instance it
  was goats that were affected by the plague of hail.

  Second, Exodus 9:19–20 mentions that those who “"feared the word of
  the Lord among the servants of Pharaoh"” were told to get their
  livestock out of the fields. Some scholars mention that these
  Egyptians may have been warned about the previous plague of pestilence
  (although it was not recorded), so they still had all of their
  livestock left. In this scenario, God warned them to put all of their
  livestock in barns so they wouldn’t be killed by hail.

  The third possibility is similar to the previous explanation except
  that the survival of their livestock hinges on the phrase “servants of
  Pharaoh.” Perhaps this means they were not actually Egyptians, but
  other vassal subjects who were warned of the plagues so that their
  animals could be spared. So in Exodus 9:6, where it says that all the
  livestock of Egypt died, this view suggests that the animals belonging
  to these foreign vassals were spared if they obeyed God and not
  Pharaoh.

  Fourth, the Bible does not reveal how much time passed between the
  fifth plague and the seventh plague. Following the fifth plague, which
  wiped out the livestock of Egypt, the Egyptians may have taken some of
  the livestock belonging to Israel. Another possibility is that they
  bought (or took) livestock from surrounding areas (Libya, Ethiopia,
  Canaan, etc). The first option would require very little time to
  complete while the second would probably require at least a few weeks.
  But since the Bible does not specify how much time passed, either is
  possible.

  The fifth, and perhaps simplest solution, would be to acknowledge the
  fact that “all” does not always mean exclusively “all.”2 We must use
  the context to determine its meaning. In the case of Exodus 9:6, it
  might be best translated that “"all manner of livestock of the
  Egyptians died."” In other words, the plague included all kinds of
  animals, as clarified in the third verse: “"on the horses, on the
  donkeys, on the camels, on the oxen, and on the sheep—a very severe
  pestilence."” This is the approach taken in Coverdale’s translation,
  and the New English Translation includes a footnote with a similar
  explanation.

 -


What is the difference between Docetism and Manichaenism concerning the Incarnation? I was doing a chapter in the 7th grade Faith and Life Religious Ed books with my students and there was a part about "errors concerning the Incarnation".  It covered Arianism and Docetism and the part about Docetism, which I'd never heard about before, sounded a lot like what I knew about Manichaenism.  I told the kids, since we're from St. Augustine's Parish, that St. Augustine believed all that stuff before his conversion.  But I'm not sure if that was right.

Concerning who Jesus was, it seems that both heresies taught the same thing.  That He was only God and not really a man. And both are reduced to the same fundamental body=bad soul=good problem.  So, what is the difference between the two?  Are Docetists always Christian and the followers of Mani pantheists?

Docetism can best be thought of as one of the Christological heresies into which Manichaenism falls.

Docetism is very specific Christological heresy.  It is a Gnostic idea that Jesus was never born, nor was he ever matter.  Gnostics believed that all matter was inherently evil, and therefore it was anathema to them that God could become matter.  In order to avoid this distasteful idea, the Gnostics presupposed that Jesus was merely a "phantasm" an apparation of light that looked like a person.  In other words, Jesus only appeared to be a man, which is what docetism means.

Manus, a Persian Philosopher had an entire (if heretical) belief system which included several gnostic ideas.  Like the Gnostics, he too believed that matter was evil and therefore God could not be born or incarnate in material form.  As such, it is most proper to say that the philosophy / religion of Manichaenism includes a docetic Christology.


Jacob and Esau: what is this story all about? This is how I see the story of Jacob and Esau (Genesis 25 and 26):

They are two very different twins who seem to fight a lot. Esau goes hunting and he is starving when he gets back. He asks Jacob for some stew. Jacob replied, "First sell me your birthright." "Look, I am about to die," Esau said. "What good is the birthright to me?" So Esau accepts the trade and it says "he despised his birthright."

1) When Esau says he is about to die, is this figuratively (from hunger) or literally he thinks he is close to dying from old age?

Then it gets kinda weird because Isaac's wife, Rebekah, tells her son, Jacob, to trick Isaac into thinking he is Esau and give the blessing to him. Jacob is hesitant and says "I would appear to be tricking him and would bring down a curse on myself rather than a blessing." But then she says, "Let the curse fall on me. Just do what I say." Jacob then lies and tricks his father into believe he is Esau so Isaac blesses him.

2) Isn't Rebekah promoting lying, deception, and disrespecting elders?

3) What is the difference between birthright and blessing? They sound similar.

4) If they are similar, why didn't Jacob just tell his father that Esau willingly gave up his birthright?

5) Are Isaac's words/blessings/curses really powerful enough to change the course of Jacob/Esau's life?

Sorry for all the questions but this whole passage seems really confusing to me.

I think that the lesson learned here is essentially the same one as the parenthood dispute in King Solomon's court: regardless of who the blessing actually originally belonged to by birth, it ended up going to the one who could truly appreciate its worth.

We have here the story of Jacob, a man of spiritual sensitivity, contrasted with his brother Esau, who was a hunter.  Hunters are not well-regarded in the Old Testament, (the archetype being Nimrod, the "mighty hunter" who is traditionally equated with the founder of Babylon and the one who directed the construction of the Tower of Babel, and standing in opposition to God and his people,) and we see Esau following the stereotype, caring more for temporal things than for the things of God.

Where his character really shows is in the matter of the birthright.  This was the continuation of the great covenant blessing, given by God to Abraham and then passed down to Isaac, to have a numberless posterity and be the father of many nations, (see Genesis 15 and 17) and, most impressive of all, that "in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed," (Genesis 22:18) which was literally fulfilled by Christ being born through his lineage.

Jacob appreciated these blessings, whereas Esau--who is by this point a grown man able to go out on hunts alone and look after himself--comes across as a petulant child.  You can almost hear the whiny tone in his voice as he says, "who cares about the stupid birthright? I'm starving!" All he cared about in the moment was the needs of the moment, and for that he was willing to sacrifice great eternal blessings.

Unfortunately, for whatever reason, Esau was his father's favorite.  And as the transaction had occurred between Jacob and Esau in private, with no witnesses, if Jacob were to claim that Esau had sold him the birthright, it would be his word against his brother's.  And as we see from subsequent events, Esau had every intention of taking the birthright that was no longer his, even if it be by force.  Bear in mind, when asking why Jacob used deception to obtain the blessing that was rightfully his, that Esau was willing to use deception (claiming that he was still entitled to it) and worse to obtain it when it was not rightfully his.

As for Isaac's words being powerful enough to change the course of his sons' lives, bear in mind that they aren't ordinary words in this case. They're carrying the weight of a covenant established with the Lord, and the Lord does have the power to change the course of people's lives.


In Catholicism, does the efficacy of the sacrament depend on the intention of the priest? In an essay by Gordon Clark, no friend of Roman Catholicism, I was surprised to read his contention that in Catholicism, the efficacy of the sacrament depends on the intention of the priest.  As part of his criticism he describes an apparently historical episode illustrating the problem:

  In Romanism the proper administration of a sacrament, and therefore its efficacy, depends on the intention of the priest. Unless the priest has the secret intention of doing what the Church intends in the definition of the sacrament, the thing does not work. Now, there was a priest who came to rebel against the whole system of his church. He came to have a hatred of religion. While in this state of mind, according to his later confession, he baptized many infants with the intention, not of doing what the Church defined, but of sending them to hell. Of course the priest is hardly to be commended for such evil intentions, as he himself later came to see; but consider the position of the Roman church which deprived these infants of regeneration by making a valid baptism to depend on the priest. (source)

While I have a morbid curiosity about who this priest was and when he did this terrible thing, here I'm more interested in discovering if Catholicism actually teaches something similar to what Clark is claiming.  If a priest intends to send babies to hell while he is baptizing them, are those infants deprived of regeneration, according to Catholicism?  Does valid administration of a sacrament depend on the priest's intentions?

Note that, while related, this isn't necessarily the same thing as Donatism, which Catholicism rejects.  In the Donatist controversy, as I understand it, the main issue was the efficacy of the sacrament if the priest was a heretic or had committed a mortal sin – not whether his intentions were correct.  Thus, if Clark is wrong, I expect answers to contain more than a mere reference to Donatism; I want to see how the Church has dealt with intentions, not just the moral status of the priest.

The Church's current teaching points to the sacrament itself overcoming any weakness of an individual.

  If a priest intends to send babies to hell while he is baptizing them, are those infants deprived of regeneration, according to Catholicism?

No.  The presumption made that a priest intends to send babies to hell is based on absurdity (addressed later) similar to "if Korvin placed his hand in a blender with the intention of trimming his nails ..."

Canon law makes the presumption that a sacrament is entered into with correct intent. (An exception must be demonstrated)
Extraordinary claims require investigation.  The claim that an ordained bishop/priest/deacon did as described requires proof to be credible: such a bizarre case would need to be investigated by a tribunal.  For example, the sacrament of matrimony accrues the favor of the law unless it is asserted that the marriage was not sacramental.  In such case, a tribunal must examine the evidence and forward its findings on the facts of the matter to the local ordinary, and now to the archdioceses.

  CCC 1128 This is the meaning of the Church's affirmation49 that the
  sacraments act ex opere operato (literally: "by the very fact of the
  action's being performed"), i.e., by virtue of the saving work of
  Christ, accomplished once for all.  It follows that "the sacrament is
  not wrought by the righteousness of either the celebrant or the
  recipient, but by the power of God." 50 From the moment that a
  sacrament is celebrated in accordance with the intention of the
  Church, the power of Christ and his Spirit acts in and through it,
  independently of the personal holiness of the minister. Nevertheless,
  the fruits of the sacraments also depend on the disposition of the one
  who receives them.

You ask in a follow up comment:

  What does "From the moment that a sacrament is celebrated in accordance with the intention of the Church" imply? If the priest's intention is not in accord with the Church's, does this section apply?

I respond:
The Church is the Body of Christ and is bigger than any one person in it or any one person serving it.
The intention of the Church is that all be saved through Baptism.  (Great Commission, etc)
That's how I heard it explained, and is consistent with how the church generally see the sacraments.  In the modern vernacular, if "on a given day" a priest does not have his A-game" the Church always does.  Why?  Because the Church is (a) the Body of Christ, and (b) One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  The holiness of the church is not abrogated by the sinfulness of one member.

Problem's with Clark's polemic

Assuming (1) a priest intends to send babies to hell, and (2) said priest with that intention would not first go to confession to cleanse himself of evil and lack of charity --  but instead with hate in his heart perform a baptism -- is to create an argument of the absurd.  Give me a freakin' break.  Whence comes this assumption?  From a lack of Christian charity.  While I question the honesty, the intent, and motive of anyone proposing that absurdity (Clark) we can play along since the polemic is now in play.

By having evil intention, per Clark's absurdist example, the clergyman by abdicating Christian charity falls into the Donatist category (Canon XII from Trent, which follows Canon XI, the basis of the argumentum absurdum) that you asked to set aside in establishing the criteria for an answer.  (Why would one suppose things happen in a vacuum?)

The Council of Trent covered more than one base in the Canons.  In any case, the current Church has addressed this in the cited CCC 1128.

The above considered, @MattGutting pointed to Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologoca, III, Q64 which is one of the notes for the CCC; it finds Thomas arguing with himself on this edge case.

  Reply to Objection 2: On this point there are two opinions. For some hold that the mental intention of the minister is necessary; in the absence of which the sacrament is invalid: and that this defect in the case of children who have not the intention of approaching the sacrament, is made good by Christ, Who baptizes inwardly: whereas in adults, who have that intention, this defect is made good by their faith and devotion.
  Consequently, others with better reason hold that the minister of a sacrament acts in the person of the whole Church, whose minister he is; while in the words uttered by him, the intention of the Church is expressed; and that this suffices for the validity of the sacrament, except the contrary be expressed on the part either of the minister or of the recipient of the sacrament. (Further up, Aquinas posits "intent" thusly: And this intention is expressed by the words which are pronounced in the sacraments; for instance the words, "I baptize thee in the name of the Father," etc")

One can read this as "if he's up there doing the baptism, and says the words, the Church takes over."  (Or one can choose not to).  Part of the citation goes directly to personal intention being an obstacle, while the other passage argues the opposite.

Given that the CCC citation appears to be a product of synthesis over the years, the conclusion in the CCC stands up when the juxtaposition of both Canons XI and XII of Trent are considered.

I added citations from the CCC's notes.  I'd recommend a review of CCC 1117-1129 (if you can handle the corpulent prose) to get the larger view of how the Church sees the sacraments.  From the proceedings of Trent, it seems a mistake of reasoning to set aside the Donatism in relationship to the other matter.  Clark's attack looks like both a case of special pleading and an exercise in the absurd.

49 Cf. Council of Trent (1547): DS 1608.

  CANON XI.-If any one saith, that, in ministers, when they effect, and confer the sacraments, there is not required the intention at least of doing what the Church does; let him be anathema.
  CANON XII.-If any one saith, that a minister, being in mortal sin,-if so be that he observe all the essentials which belong to the effecting, or conferring of, the sacrament,-neither effects, nor confers the sacrament; let him be anathema.

50 St. Thomas Aquinas, STh III, 68, 8.

Regarding CCC note DS 1608; Sources Catholic Doctrine (Denzinger-Schonmetzer; Enchiridion Symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum):

  The Ordinations of Schismatics *   [From the epistle (1) "Exordium
  Pontificatus mei" to Anastasius Augustus, 496] 169 (7) According to
  the most sacred custom of the Catholic Church, let the heart of your
  serenity acknowledge that no share in the injury from the name of
  Acacius should attach to any of these whom Acacius the schismatic
  bishop has baptized, or to any whom he has ordained priests or levites
  according to the canons, lest perchance the grace of the sacrament
  seem less powerful when conferred by an unjust [person]. . . . For if
  the rays of that visible sun are not stained by contact with any
  Pollution when they pass over the foulest places, much less is the
  virtue of him who made that visible [sun] fettered by any unworthiness
  in the minister. (8) Therefore, then, this person has only injured
  himself by wickedly administering the good. For the inviolable
  sacrament, which was given through him, held the perfection of its
  virtue for others.

The other reference in Denzinger looks to cross reference to 851, which is a reflects the Council of Trent

  1608 851 Can. 8. If anyone shall say that by the said sacraments of the New Law, grace is not conferred from the work which has been worked [ex opere operato], but that faith alone in the divine promise suffices to obtain grace: let him be anathema.


Does God punish babies and children who die in sin? I've always wondered this. Before they even have a chance to think for themselves, and they die in sin, does God send them to Hell?

If we can determine what sin is, we can determine if God would be able to punish a child for it.  Fortunately Jesus will never leave us in the dark.  He gives us a definition of what sin is in the book of 1 John 3:4 which states “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.” 1  Sin is the transgression or the breaking of God’s law, His Ten Commandments.  Because of this we must ask which of the Ten Commandments has a child violated?  Has an infant murder, lying, theft, adultery, Sabbath-breaking or blasphemy?  Certainly not.  Is crying a sin?  “Jesus wept”.  (John 11:35) Jesus gives us great insight into how God judges sin when He said…

  “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, ‘We see.’
  Therefore your sin remains.” (John 9:41)

Listen closely, children are born with a sinful nature that is we have this inward pull or desire to sin but we are not born sinners.  Sin is the breaking of God’s law.  And we have concluded that babies have not broken the Ten Commandments.  Even if they did, Jesus told us in John 9:41 that were there is no understanding, there is no sin. Again Jesus said

  “If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin, but now
  they have no excuse for their sin.” (John 15:22)

Where there can be no knowledge, there can be no sin.

Imagine if one day a group of police officers showed up at your door.  They quickly handcuffed you, you were taken to a courtroom and declared guilty of war crimes.  “War crimes, I’ve never fought in a war!” you plead.  The judge responds and says “your great grandfather committed war crimes in World War 1 and we are punishing you for the crime, I hereby sentence you to death”.

Certainly a human judge would never make such an unfair sentence.  How could you be judged for a crime that occurred when you never even were alive? Yet would God throw someone in hell because of the sins of their parents, or grandparents?  Or because of the sins of Adam in the garden of Eden?  Does the guilt of one generation pass on from generation to generation through a bloodline?  The Bible gives us the answer in Ezekiel 18:20 when it says

  “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the
  father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of
  the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked
  shall be upon himself.“

Here the Bible says the son shall not bear the guilt of the father.  Again the Bible says “Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their fathers; a person shall be put to death for his own sin.” (Deuteronomy 24:16)  You are not punished for the sins of any past generation.  “God is a just judge” (Psalm 7:11) and God is much fairer than any human court.  It is true, sin does have consequences. If your parents were abusive you may have suffered the consequences, when Adam sinned the earth received the curse of death, but the guilt of one generation does not pass from generation to generation.  This would be unfair.  Only those who have sinned will be condemned.

The book of Isaiah chapter 65 tells us that yes, infants will be in heaven for it is written

  “For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth;  And the former
  shall not be remembered or come to mind. I will rejoice in Jerusalem,
  and joy in My people; The voice of weeping shall no longer be heard in
  her, nor the voice of crying.  No more shall an infant from there live
  but a few days”. Isaiah 65:17,19-20

When Exodus 20 talks about visiting the iniquities to the third and fourth generation, it means sinful tendencies are transferred from generation to generation (example, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob all struggled with lying, David and Solomon struggled with women, etc).  It does not mean people are thrown in hell for the sins of their grandfathers.


Although Jesus takes away the sins of the world, are God and Jesus still offended by every sin that is committed? All Christians believe that God sent Jesus to take away the sins of the world because every sin committed by mankind has always been and always will be an offense to God.

Although Jesus takes away the sins of the world, is Jesus still personally offended by every sin that is committed by mankind since He and God are one?

John 10:30 "I and the Father are one."

John 14:9-10 "Jesus replied, “Philip, I have been with you all this time, and still you do not know Me? Anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? The words I say to you, I do not speak on My own. Instead, it is the Father dwelling in Me, performing His works."

Consider that the Jesus who lived on the Earth 2000 years ago did not change after He ascended into Heaven. Jesus in Heaven then is still part God and part human. He still has his human emotions, and if so, He is prone to becoming offended/angered by every sin committed by mankind. Jesus is capable of becoming angry, for instance recall the time Jesus got angry at the money changers in God's Temple and overturned their tables.

Jesus was most offended by hypocrisy. People who practiced the sins they condemned in others.

When we accept Jesus as our savior, our past sins are forgiven, are future sins are not recorded. (Romans 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you for ye are not under the law, but under grace.) Romans 5:13, sin is not imputed where there is no law. Impute means to record in our account; the one we present God on the day we stand before him.

Remember the parable of the unforgiving servant? Matthew 18:15. The servant owed the king a huge sum, and was forgiven. Was he forgiven? Yes he was. Are we forgiven? Yes we are. But then something happened. That servant was owed a small sum and demanded that the debtor pay up, or be thrown in jail. The servant did not forgive his debtor. Subsequently, the unforgiving servant was thrown in jail. Jesus is clear that it could happen to us.

Matthew 7:1 Judge not that ye be not judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged, and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured unto you again.

When we sin against God (and remember, as you have done it unto the least of these my brethren, you have done it unto me), in order to measure out the judgment, he needs to wait until we pass judgment on someone who offends us in that way. So, he sends someone our way to offend us in the way we have offended him. Then, he measures to us accordingly.

The moral of the story is, when you mete out judgment, make sure you would be happy to have that measured unto you again.


Which tribe did Paul belong to? I came across below two verses when I am reading through my bible(Telugu language).

To me, these two statements seem to contradict each other:

Acts 21: 29

  But Paul said, "I am a man who am a Jew of Tarsus, a city of Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city; and I beseech thee, suffer me to
  speak unto the people." (empahsis added)

Romans 11:1

  I also am an Israelite of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin

Doesn't the first passage mean he is from the tribe of Judah?.

Which tribe did he belong to: Judah or Benjamin?

The term "Jew" is an Anglicization of "Judean" which comes from the Greek Ἰουδαῖος (Ioudaios). Technically, it can simply be a regional distinction, that is someone who is from Judea. But it can of course represent one's ethnicity. Greek who happened to grow up in Judea would not have identified himself as a Judean.

In the book of Esther, the Hebrew "Yĕhuwdiy" (יְהוּדִי) is translated Jew, but in this case the Hebrew is etymologically connected to Judah (Judahite, or Jehudite). Though not all the Israelites in Esther are Judahite, this term is used to encompass all of them, showing that it has become, even at the time of Esther's writing, a universal term.

In the Israelite's return from Babylonian exile in around 500 BC, only the tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Levi (who had been in the southern kingdom of Judah when taken captive by Babylon) returned as representative tribes. While remnants of other tribes did exist, only these three return in large numbers and with intact genealogies.

The name Judah, as before in the kingdom of Judah, continued to dominate. In Greek it became Judea, and thus we have Judeans.

So while it can be technically taken as "Judahite", the term "Jew" was expanded to refer to all of the Israelites of Judea.

Therefore, Paul is a Jew, of the Tribe of Benjamin. Both statements are correct and consistent.


What's the biblical basis for the belief that God truly judges our hearts behind our actions and not the actions themselves? What's the biblical basis for the belief that God ultimately judges a thing to be a sin or not based on the intentions in our heart and not the action solely?

That would seem to be the indication in this passage, though the context of this verse is not speaking specifically of judgment of sin.

  1 Samuel 16:7 ESV But the Lord said to Samuel, “Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.”

Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/45327/11471

There are many references in the bible regarding judgment however to stick to you question directly the simplest answer can be read at Jeremiah 17: 10 which states I God am the searcher of hearts examining the innermost thoughts to give each one according to his ways according to the fruit age of his works. Mt 15:19 Jesus Jesus speaks of the heart and how out of it stems many sins. And in proberbs4: 23 it counsels us to safegaurd our heart because out of it comes the source of life. So with regards to Romans 14:10 where it states we all render an account to God. Logically God knows us better than we know ourselves the psalmist states he knew us from the womb and he knows the number of hairs on our heads so from the bible I would conclude there is much more to how God judges us then simply our actions, isaiah55:8,9 says God will forgive in a large way for my thoughts are not your thoughts and your ways are not my ways declares God for as the heavens are higher than the earth so my ways are higher than your ways and my thought than your thoughts


Origin of the quote "If he'd had anything more precious, he'd have given it" I'm looking for a quote by a Holy Father (can't remember if it was a recent one or not) from the Orthodox tradition. I seem to remember his discussing the nature of the atonement and the fact that God could have 'snapped His fingers' and forgiven everyone but instead he chose to reveal Himself by sending His most precious Son to undergo humiliation for us in a revelation of the love of the Holy Trinity.

Then he mentions that this happened because the Son is the most valuable thing which the Father possesses and that, if He had anything more dear to Him, He would have given that instead. I believe I came across this while reading Orthodox Dogmatic Theology but I can't find the quote. Help, please?

The quote is from the Ascetical Homilies of Isaac the Syrian.  It is found in a note to the section entitled "The Economy of Our Salvation" in Chapter 6 of Orthodox Dogmatic Theology.  The quote in full reads:

  God the Lord surrendered His own Son to death on the Cross for the
  fervent love of creation. For God so loved the world that He gave His
  only begotten Son to death for our sake (cf. John 3: 16). This was
  not, however, because He could not have redeemed us in another way,
  but so that His surpassing love, manifested hereby, might be a teacher
  unto us. And by the death of His only begotten Son He made us near to
  Himself. Yea, if He had had anything more precious, He would have
  given it to us, so that by it our race might be His own

  Pomazansky, Fr. Michael. Orthodox Dogmatic Theology (Kindle Locations
  6187-6191). St. Herman Press. Kindle Edition.


Who was affected by the plague in Numbers 25? "While Israel lived in Shittim, the people began to whore with the daughters of Moab. 2 These invited the people to the sacrifices of their gods, and the people ate and bowed down to their gods. 3 So Israel yoked himself to Baal of Peor. And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel. 4 And the Lord said to Moses, “Take all the chiefs of the people and hang[a] them in the sun before the Lord, that the fierce anger of the Lord may turn away from Israel.” 5 And Moses said to the judges of Israel, “Each of you kill those of his men who have yoked themselves to Baal of Peor.” 6And behold, one of the people of Israel came and brought a Midianite woman to his family, in the sight of Moses and in the sight of the whole congregation of the people of Israel, while they were weeping in the entrance of the tent of meeting. 7 When Phinehas the son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose and left the congregation and took a spear in his hand 8 and went after the man of Israel into the chamber and pierced both of them, the man of Israel and the woman through her belly. Thus the plague on the people of Israel was stopped. 9 Nevertheless, those who died by the plague were twenty-four thousand."- Numbers 25:1-9

Did the victims of this plague refer to the execution of those who participated in the Baal-Peor incident? Or did it refer to Israelite bystanders who simply paid a major price for their sinful leaders?

I can only express my own opinion as the account is not specific regarding the question.

It is stated that evil was done (verses 1-3). It is stated what the Lord said to Moses about the matter (verse 4) and what was to be done to the heads of the people (the translation quoted in the OP states 'chiefs' but other translations infer it was the actual heads of the offending persons).

It is stated what Moses said to the judges (verse 5).

Despite all this, still, one man at least paid no heed. And there is afterwards a mention of a plague. I would suggest the plague began when there was lack of absolute and unanimous response to the Lord's words and to Moses' words.

And I would suggest that it was Phinehas' righteous action that stopped the plague, as it is written. I assume that his action - so public and against such a high-ranking Israelite - was the pivot point for the whole congregation of Israel to turn from the evil.

My reading of the passage is that the plague began because of a less than unanimous repentance. And that the action of Phinehas (and the effects of that action on the whole congregation) brought the plague to a halt.

This is a very important passage with regard to justification by faith and is mentioned again in Psalm 106, in even more emphatic terms.


What must a Catholic believe to be a Catholic? What must a Catholic believe to be a Catholic? I know we must believe the articles in the Nicene and Apostolic Creeds and the Ex Cathedra statements about Holy Mary's Immaculate Conception and Assumption. What else must be believed, to be a practicing Catholic, according to the Catholic Church?

Truths absolutely necessary for salvation
The four truths absolutely necessary to believe for salvation are that

"he [God] is", i.e., that God exists (Heb. 11:6)
God "is a rewarder to them that seek him." (Heb. 11:6)
the Second Person of the Trinity took on a human nature (Incarnation)
God is Three Divine Persons in one God (Trinity)

Note: There is unanimous consent among Catholic theologians that truths #1 and #2 are absolutely necessary to be explicitly believed in order to be saved, but not all theologians (St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Alphonsus Liguori, et al. excepted) think that explicit belief in truths #3 and #4 is necessary; cf. True or False Pope p. 113 // PDF p. 128.source
Truths necessary to be Catholic
To be Catholic, one must, as the asker writes, indeed "believe the articles in the Nicene and Apostolic Creeds and the Ex Cathedra statements about Holy Mary's Immaculate Conception and Assumption" (cf. the 4 Marian dogmas).


Why is Jesus called the Truth? Multiple times in the Bible Jesus declares that He is the Truth, or that He is on the side of Truth.

  John 14:6 NIV

  Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes
  to the Father except through me.

  John 18:37

  “You are a king, then!” said Pilate. Jesus answered, “You say that I
  am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is
  to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”

What is Jesus referring to with this word, Truth? Pilate then asks Jesus this same question. But I don't think that Pilate was actually looking for an answer, this is more of a sarcastic rhetorical question to in my opinion.

  John 18:38

  “What is truth?” retorted Pilate. With this he went out again to the
  Jews gathered there and said, “I find no basis for a charge against
  him.

Can you answer that for me?

A partial answer is that I understand that the Greek word for truth is also the same as reality. So Jesus is making a profound statement similar to Paul's:

Acts 17:28
‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’

Paul is referring to God. When Jesus (earlier) referred to Himself as Truth / Reality, it was probably to His listeners a claim to divinity.
So, He claimed to be The Way, The Truth and The Life. In other words, He said, "I'm the Path to God, I'm God and I'm what you experience when you're with God."
Footnote: He is certainly not claiming to be just a moral teacher...


Is there a scripture affirming the begetting of the Word? John's prologue does support the begetting of the Word by using the term " only-begotten" but bible scholars nowadays almost always consider it as a mistranslation of the Greek word " monogenes".

So the question really revolves around the said word " monogenes". Is there a Biblical, Historical and Linguistic proof for it to be translated as " only begotten"?

The NASB is a very current  English Bible version that still translate "monogenes" as only begotten. Therefore, my question is answerable.

The following is a list of multitudes of Greek words that share the same suffix -γενής, each with possesses the sense of “born”/ “begotten”:
ἀφρογενής = “foam-born”
Αἰγυπτογενής = “born of an Egyptian”
αἰθρηγενής = “born in Aether (clear sky)”
ἁλιγενής = “sea-born” (also, ποντογενής; θαλασσογενής)
ἀλλογενής = “born of another [race]”
ἀρτιγενής = “just now born”
Ἀσιαγενής = “Asiatic born” (also, Ἀσιατογενής)
Ἀτλαγενής = “born of Atlas”
αὐθιγενής = “born here”
βοηγενής = “born of an ox”
βραδυγενής = “late-born” (also, ὀψιγενής)
γηγενής = “earth-born”
Δηλογενής = “born in Delos”
διδυμογενής = “twin-born” (born as a twin) (also, ὁμηγενής)
διγενής = “double-born” (born as both sexes; androgynous)
Διογενής = “born of Dio” (also known as “Zeus”)
Διθυραμβογενής = “born of Dithyramb” (also known as “Dionysius”)
δρακοντογενής = “born of a dragon”
δυσγενής = “low-born” (also, νοθαγενής)
ἑβδομαγενής = “born on the seventh day”
ἐγγενής = “inborn”; “innate”
ἑλειογενής = “marsh-born”
ἐνδογενής = “born in the house” (also, οἰκογενής)
εὐηγενής = “well-born”
ἠπειρογενής = “born or living in the mainland (esp. of Greece)”
θεαγενής = “god-born” (also, θεηγενής; θειογενής; θεογενής)
Ἰδογενής = “born on Mount Ida”
Ἰνδογενής = “born in India”
ἰθαγενής = “legally born”
κακογενής = “evil-born”; “base-born”
κογχογενής = “born from a shell”
Κοιογενής = “born of Koios”
κρατογενής = “head-born”
κρυφογενής = “secretly born” (also, κυθηγενής)
Κυπρογενής = “born in Cyprus”
Λητογενής = “born of Leto”
Λυκηγενής = “born in Lycia”
μελιηγενής = “ash-born”
μεταγενής = “born after”
Νειλογενής = “born in the Nile”
νεογενής = “new-born”
νυμφαγενής = “born of a nymph” (also, νυμφογενής)
ὀφιογενής = “born of a serpent”
ὀμβρηγενής = “born in the rain”
ὀνειρογενής = “born of a dream”
ὀρειγενής = “mountain-born”
παλαιγενής = “born of old”; “born long ago”
πατρογενής = “father born”; “begotten of the father”
Περσογενής = “born in Persia”
πετρηγενής = “rock-born” (also, πετρογενής)
πρεσβυγενής = “first-born”; “eldest-born” (also, πρωτογενής)
προγενής = “born before” (also, προσγενής; προσθαγενής; προτερηγενής)
Πυλοιγενής = “born in Pylos”
πυριγενής = “born in fire” (also, πυρογενής)
Σουσιγενής = “born at Susa”
συγγενής = “born with”; “congenital”
Ταρσογενής = “born at Tarsus”
τετραγενής = “born four times”
τριγενής = “born three times”; “thrice-born”
Τριτογενής = “born of Triton”
ὑδογενής = “born in water”
ὑλιγενής = “born in the forest” (also, ὑλογενής)
ὑπερευγενής = “exceedingly well-born”
φοινικογενής = “born in Phoenicia”
Notice the suffix of all the words. It is -γενής, just like in the word μονογενής.

As for a verse that confirms the eternal begetting, aside from those containing μονογενής, consider John 8:42, in which it is written,

εἶπεν οὖν αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς Εἰ ὁ θεὸς πατὴρ ὑμῶν ἦν ἠγαπᾶτε ἂν ἐμέ ἐγὼ γὰρ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐξῆλθον καὶ ἥκω οὐδὲ γὰρ ἀπ᾽ ἐμαυτοῦ ἐλήλυθα ἀλλ᾽ ἐκεῖνός με ἀπέστειλεν
Therefore, Yeshua a said to them, "If God were your father, you would love me, for I came out of God and have arrived. For neither have I come of myself, but the same sent me."

In De Trinitate ("On the Trinity"), Hilary of Poitiers strives to refute numerous heresies, one of which denied the force of the aforementioned scripture. In response to these heretics, he wrote,

Postremo quod dixit: Ex Patre exivi, et veni (John 8:42), utrum ambiguitatem reliquerit, quin intelligeretur non aliunde quam ex Patre esse quod Deus est? Ex Patre enim exiens, neque aliam nativitatis habuit naturam, neque nullam: sed eum sibi testatur auctorem, ex quo se profitetur exisse. De his autem demonstrandis atque intelligendis posterior mihi sermo est.
(Pending my English translation)  See link below for Schaff's translation.

Source: De Trinitate ("On the Trinity"), Book VI, §16. | English | Latin |

This pdf contains a list of all the NT verses in which we find a conjugation of the verb ἐξέρχομαι followed by the preposition ἐκ/ ἐξ. What this list demonstrates is that Yeshu'a must have actually come out of God --- not in a figurative way, nor by simply being sent (which is expressed elsewhere by another Greek phrase: ἐγὼ παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐξῆλθον, cp. John 16:27), but actually, by a spiritual generation.
The peculiar thing about this Greek phrase is that it is also used in the LXX to indicate offspring being begotten from a father (cp. Gen. 15:4: ἐξελεύσεται ἐκ; Gen. 17:6: ἐκ...ἐξελεύσονται; Gen. 35:11: ἐκ...ἐξελεύσονται; Gen. 46:26: ἐξελθόντες ἐκ) and coming forth from a mother's womb (Job 1:21: ἐξῆλθον ἐκ), both acts of generation.
Commenting about the Greek phrase ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐξῆλθον in John 8:42, John Gill notes,

the former of these phrases is observed by many learned men to be used by the Septuagint, of a proper natural birth, as in (Gen. 15:4, 35:11); and here designs the eternal generation of Christ, as the Son of God, being the only begotten of the Father, and the Son of the Father in truth and love; and the other is to be understood of his mission from him, as Mediator:

In his commentary on John 8:42, Henry Alford notes,

ἥκω conveys the result of ἐξῆλθον, as Meyer; who also remarks that mere sending will not exhaust ἐξῆλθον, which must be taken metaphysically, of the proceeding forth of the Eternal Son from the essence of the Father.


What were the findings of the Acts Seminar? The Seminar on Acts of the Apostles sat for ten years until 2011, examining the Acts of the Apostles. What were its main findings and how were they arrived at?

The Acts Seminar was one of several seminars set up by The Westar Institute as "large-scale, collaborative research projects" on various topics in early Christian history. Fellows attending and voting at the Seminars are academics in theology, Bible studies and cognate fields.  The voting system was based on traditional scholarly practice, whereby each member of the Seminar assigned a colour to his or her response to a question after full discussion, as described by the institute's Wikipedia page:

  RED: This information is virtually certain; it is supported by a preponderance of the evidence and is accepted as historical.
  PINK: This information is not certain but is probably reliable; it fits well with evidence that is verifiable and so is regarded as
  borderline historical.
  GRAY: This information is possible but unreliable; it is not a clear fabrication but lacks supporting evidence and so is regarded as
  dubious.
  BLACK: This information is improbable; it does not fit verifiable evidence or seems to be a fabrication and is regarded as
  nonhistorical.

As described by the Seminar summary report, the goal was to go through the canonical Acts of the Apostles from beginning to end and evaluate it for historical accuracy.  The Seminar announced that its principal findings were:

  The use of Acts as a source for history has long needed critical
  reassessment.
  Acts was written in the early decades of the second century.
  The author of Acts used the letters of Paul as sources.
  Except for the letters of Paul, no other historically reliable
  source can be identified for Acts.
  Acts can no longer be considered an independent source for the life
  and mission of Paul.
  Contrary to Acts 1-7, Jerusalem was not the birthplace of
  Christianity.
  Acts constructs its story on the model of epic and related
  literature.
  The author of Acts created names for characters as storytelling
  devices.
  Acts constructs its story to fit ideological goals.
  Acts is a primary historical source for second century
   Christianity.

"The Seminar has not found a core historical story of Christian beginnings in Acts", which is "not to say that Acts is totally unhistorical but to observe that it is less helpful in the historical reconstruction of Christian beginnings than previously assumed."

The full report of the Seminar is published as  Acts and Christian Beginnings: The Acts Seminar Report (Polebridge Press, 2013), edited by Dennis E. Smith, Joseph B. Tyson.


What did Jesus mean by 'going for a second mile '? At Matthew 5:39-41 (NRSVCE) we read:

  But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also;   and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well;   and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile.

I wish to know about the backdrop against which a person could have been forced to go one mile, say by a soldier who was shifting his post and was looking for a native  to accompany him to his new place of posting. How do the Catholic teachings interpret the said  saying of Jesus?

This was a reference to a law by which the Roman could force a Jew to carry some goods for one mile and one mile only. Therefore, here Jesus meant that, if you just go one mile, there is nothing special, as that is the law. You must go further than that, by will and love. It might also have been an indication that the new covenant does not revolve on following the law, but in a new measure of love.

You can read it much better in this book, and the relevant quote below:


Is there a historical reason why the liturgical colour purple eventually replaced black to symbolize penance? Is there a historical reason why the liturgical colour purple eventually replaced black to symbolize penance?

This question does not have its' answer in the difference between the two forms of the Latin Rite as both rites employed the liturgical colour purple during the penitential season of Lent!

  In the twelfth century, Pope Innocent III was the first to specify the colours of the vestments that were to be used for the Roman Rite; almost certainly this reflected prevailing custom in Rome, not an invention on his part. Although a separate subject from this article, it is well to remember that it was only towards the end of the 1st Millenium that the question of vestment colour became a significant one.Black was designated for penitential and funeral liturgies, but violaceus was indicated as a  substitute for black. Pope Innocent’s treatise De sacro altaris mysterio (Book I, chapter 65, which was written before his election as pope in 1198) seems to be the first indication that violaceus had come to be regarded as a penitential colour for the Roman Rite.

  If the Royal Purple colour which emerged in Late Antiquity Europe as a substitute for Tyrian Purple incorporated what Innocent III refers to as violaceus how did it come to be regarded as a colour of Penance rather than Status? -  The Saint Bede Studio

Even the Lyon Rite chose to employ "Ashen" coloured vestment during Lent and not purple unless ash coloured vestments could not be obtained.

  "Ash" colored vestments are utilized from Ash Wednesday until the Mass of the Lord's Supper exclusive. Where Ash is not available violet is used. And black comes out of the sacristy for Masses of the Dead and Good Friday. A parish could survive on only three or four sets of vestments. - The Rad Trad

Can any historical reason be found as to how or why the liturgical colour purple eventually replaced the traditional black as a symbol of penance within the Catholic Church?

Is there a historical reason why the liturgical colour purple eventually replaced black to symbolize penance?
Having dived into this question for some time now, I would like to simply postulate a possible response to this solution. At lest until another can come up with a more precise answer.
No historical reason seems to be able to be found at the present moment.
Is it not possible that the cause of this color change was due to how historical black dyes faded into other colors such as purple?
First a little background on the colors involved.
It could be noted that priests who celebrate Mass in the Ambrosian Rite (Rite of Milan) wear black vestments during Lent. Pope Paul VI was the Archbishop of Milan before being elected as Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church in 1963.

The liturgical color for Lenten feriae is that of strict penance: black.
In fact, according to the Ambrosian tradition, black is not only the colour of mourning (and, as such, used for requiem Masses), but also the true color of penance and fast: in this sense it is used at least since the XII century not only for Lenten ferial days but also for the Minor Litanies, that in the Ambrosian Rite occur after the Ascension. - Liturgical Colors for Lent in the Ambrosian Tradition

Here are the colors others than black that are of interest in either the liturgy or colors worn by Catholic prelates.

In the twelfth century, Pope Innocent III was the first to specify the colors of the vestments that were to be used for the Roman Rite; almost certainly this reflected prevailing custom in Rome, not an invention on his part. Although a separate subject from this article, it is well to remember that it was only towards the end of the 1st Millenium that the question of vestment color became a significant one. Black was designated for penitential and funeral liturgies, but violaceus was indicated as a  substitute for black. Pope Innocent’s treatise De sacro altaris mysterio (Book I, chapter 65, which was written before his election as pope in 1198) seems to be the first indication that violaceus had come to be regarded as a penitential color for the Roman Rite.
Whilst I suggest that it is an error to interpret Innocent’s violaceus as intending only the color violet as we recognize it today, it should also be noted that his treatise in a separate section (Chapter 32) discusses the use of the Mosaic colors (cf Exodus 28:5) scarlet, flax-gold, blue and purple, the latter which Innocent describes as signifying the authority and royal dignity of a bishop. In short, purpura still had the connotation of prestige in the time of Innocent III (quite distinct from a penitential use).
It is likely that at this time (12th century) Tyrian or Imperial purple was still being used in Rome, but it had become the colour used exclusively by the Pope and by nobility. So, when Innocent used the word violaceus, instead of purpura, it would seem very unlikely that he was recommending that violaceus-colored vestments were to be dyed from the expensive process for producing Tyrian purple. That expensive process would be unaffordable and unavailable to Western clergy. Rather, it would seem likely that Innocent’s violaceus was intended as Royal purple , a colour produced from the less expensive non-Murex dyes. It should be carefully noted that these less expensive dyeing processes could produce a violet-coloured dye or an amethyst (or fuchsia) purple coloured dye. But they were colours not so dark as Tyrian purple. I would suggest, therefore, that Innocent’s use of the word violaceus has nothing to do with an attempt to make a distinction (as some scholars have suggested) between the colors we recognize as violet and purple. - The Liturgical Color violaceus in the Roman Rite: Part One and Part Two

These lengthy articles show well that both the colors violet and purple were definitely colors of status. The purple that was reserved for bishops and Monsignori is actually fuchsia or amethyst. Pliny described Tyrian Purple as being the color of clotted blood and thus closer to the scarlet color of cardinals.
We can go on and on, but we seemingly can not find out how purple became associated with penance, remorse or mourning and eventually replaced black as a liturgical color.
Thus in conclusion, I would like to put forth that it may have been due to the fact that black dyes were notorious for fading.
Although somewhat mysterious as to why violet replaced black as a penitential color for Lent. One possible reason for this is that it may have come into liturgical usage due to how black fabrics faded:

Fugitive dyes are unstable. Made from pigments that are not light or color fast, they can fade even if they are well taken care of. One of the most famous examples is this black mourning dress worn by Queen Victoria on the day of her accession to the throne:

Queen Victoria’s Privy Council Dress, circa 1837

That’s a black dress?!
Well, not anymore, but it was.
Originally, this dress was a deep, shimmering black, but the fugitive dye has aged poorly. Black dyes have been historically notorious for fading, usually to this rusty brown. Some black dyes also fade to blue or even purple, depending on the dye used. - Dying Dyes: What You See Isn’t Always What Was

Could it not simply be that parish churches in past centuries could not afford new vestments and continued to use their black vestments, even after they lost their black coloring and faded purple or some shade of purple thereof?


Why is St Martin "in-the-Fields"? I was reading about the Anglican church St Martin-in-the-Fields and was curious about the  in-the-Fields part of the name. It is named after Martin of Tours who was a saint in France during the 4th century.

Saints are sometimes referred to by a significant place (Kevin of Glendalough, Alipy of the Caves) or by a title (Anthony the Great, Pope Cyril I the Pillar of Faith). But here the saint is Martin-in-the-Fields,
stylized as one word as if it is the name of the saint (think Kevin-of-Glendalough). Additionally, I've never seen an in description, going over a list of saints it's mostly ofs and thes. I would expect it to be St Martin of the Fields, if anything.

Why is Martin-in-the-Fields the chosen name what do the "Fields" refer to?

My speculation is that since he was a military saint, in-the-Fields means in the fields of battle, but I found no reference to that.

From the Wikipedia article you linked:

  St Martin-in-the-Fields is an English Anglican church at the
  north-east corner of Trafalgar Square in the City of Westminster,
  London. [...] Henry VIII rebuilt the church in 1542 to keep plague
  victims in the area from having to pass through his Palace of
  Whitehall. At this time, it was literally "in the fields", an isolated
  position between the cities of Westminster and London.

"In the fields" appears to be a reference to the location of the church, or the location of his burial site – not the name of the saint himself.


Is there a difference between Liberal, Progressive, and Emergent Christianity? In many evangelical circles I hear people use the terms liberal, progressive and emergent quite a bit, especially recently.

Do these all refer to the same categorization of groups or of thought? Or do these have a more precise meaning?

"Liberal" Christians generally follow some of the traditional practices and morals of Christianity, but generally reject the notion of the inerrancy of Scripture.  As a result, their beliefs can be very diverse.  Their emphasis on doctrine is sometimes light, but sometimes very academic.

"Emergent" Christians have adopted a "postmodern" mindset, seeking to synthesize what others regard as contradictory views.  Generally, they believe that God is bringing all people and indeed the universe to himself, and that people need to join that effort however they can. The emergent/emerging church is in some ways a reaction against the lack of the supernatural in Liberal theology, and in some ways a reaction against the alleged reliance on human logic in conservative evangelicalism.

"Progressive" Christians may also be "liberal" or "emergent", and they seek to overcome what they think are bad or sub-optimal traditions or practices.

The liberal Christian's main concern is to live for God by participating in a moral church community, without an urgent need to understand the somewhat flawed but good Bible.  The emergent Christian's main goal is to live for God by joining God's kingdom wherever they can find it, aside from the supposed futile task of exegeting the Bible.

There are many variations and differences within these, and many of those who would identify as part of one of these might reject my broad strokes above.  Nevertheless, they are useful distinctions, and I think the most important difference is in how they regard the Bible.

If you have further questions about a specific area, practice, or belief, I could give my thoughts.


Can a Catholic eat the food prepared for the Muslim Eid al-Adha? I am a Catholic living in a Muslim country>  All meat and stuff is halal according to their practice. When they offer Sacrifice on Eid can I consume the meat they send me?
 Since I believe it’s not a sacrifice to idols but in remembrance of Abraham.

What is the position of the Catholic Church on this subject?

The May Catholics eat Muslim foods prepared for the Eid al-Adha?

  Eid al-Adha is also called the “Sacrifice Feast” and it honors the willingness of Abraham to sacrifice his son, as an act of submission to God’s command. It marks the end of the Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca, the fifth Pillar of Islam. - What is Eid al-Adha?

The short answer is yes.

But that said one might avoid scandal, if in fact that possibility actually were to exist somewhere.

The Eid al-Adha is a dietary slaughter of certain animals and is not meat offered to idols, but is done in remembrance of Abraham’s willingness to sac rice his only son, Isaac.

Let us now look into the matter more deeply.

Eid al-Adha food is not offered to idols at all as the above quote demonstrates. The word sacrifice should really be slaughtered. On Eid al-Adha, which comes at the end of the hajj, or monthlong pilgrimage to Mecca, Muslims ritually slaughter a goat or other halal animal in memory of the ram Ibrahim sacrificed in place of his son. Part of the meat is eaten at the feast that is a highlight of the holy day. See here: A good weekend to be a Catholic goat

In fact, the world’s Catholic bishops at the Second Vatican Council approved Nostra Aetate declares that Catholics and Muslims have much in common.

  In 1965, Pope Paul VI and the world’s Catholic bishops at the Second Vatican Council approved Nostra Aetate, the declaration on relations with non-Christian religions. The decree’s denunciation of calumny against Jews gets most of the attention, but it also proclaimed this:

  “The church also regards with esteem the Muslims. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in himself, merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,” although “they do not acknowledge Jesus as God” and regard him as only a prophet. The subsequent Catechism of the Catholic Church likewise defines the belief that “together with us [Muslims] adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

  Such interfaith concord is disputed by some conservative Protestants in the U.S. For example, the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry believes the Catholic Church has “a faulty understanding of the God of Islam,” and Muslims “are not capable of adoring the true God.” Hank Hanegraaff of the “Bible Answer Man” broadcast — now a convert to Eastern Orthodoxy — has asserted that “the Allah of Islam” is “definitely not the God of the Bible.” [Note that “Allah” is simply the Arabic word meaning “God.”] - This is not a trick question: Do Christians and Muslims worship the same God?

How could it be not permitted when Catholics in Muslim countries deal with this subject in a different way:

  The Indonesian government set June 25 for Eid al-Fitr this year. Indonesia traditionally celebrates Eid al-Fitr over two days.

  Many churches located next to mosques — including Jakarta’s St. Mary of the Assumption Cathedral — postponed Mass June 25 so as not to interfere with Eid prayers. Catholics — including bishops, priests, nuns and laypeople — also visited and greeted Muslims at mosques and in their homes.

  Archbishop Antonio Filipazzi, papal nuncio to Indonesia, paid a courtesy call on Indonesian President Joko Widodo after attending Eid prayers at Istiqlal Mosque in Jakarta.

  Archbishop Robertus Rubiyatmoko of Semarang visited Muslims attending Eid prayers at Central Java Grand Mosque to foster “fraternity among the people of Indonesia.” Other bishops also visited local Muslims leaders.

  “I hope that interfaith life in the archipelago, especially in Central Java, will be much better in future, so that peace and joy can be established,” Archbishop Rubiyatmoko said.

  At churches across Indonesia, Christians offered lunch or gift parcels for poor Muslim families.

  In Jakarta, the archdiocese and Community of Sant’Egidio organized an Eid al-Fitr lunch at the Friendship House in West Jakarta for 160 poor Muslim children and their families.

  “The poor hardly ever have the chance to sit together for meals. So we invited them so they could sit and eat together,” said Piere Doe, coordinator of the event. - To ease tensions, Indonesian Catholics help Muslims celebrate Eid al-Fitr

According to the Church, Muslim halal meat is not sacrificed to idols at all.

  The Roman Catholic Church does not teach that food certified by either the appropriate Jewish authorities as meeting requirements for Kosher certification, or by Islamic authorities as meeting requyirements for Halal certification are foods offered to idols. The Catholic position is that the God of the Jews and the God of Muslims is the same God as the Christian God,, and therefore not an idol.

  In explaining different understandings between most Jews and most Muslims, from the understanding that most Christians have of God, Catholics teach that Jews and Muslims, and frankly many non-Catholic Christians, too, have (at best) an incomplete knowledge of the nature of God. - According to the Roman Catholic Church, is halal meat being offered up to idols?

AthanasiusOfAlex comment to this same answer follows as such:

  Muslims do not assert that thereby they are offering a sacrifice to God. They are simply fulfilling their dietary requirements. That is very different from the situation described in Acts and 1 Corinthians.

Pakistan Church offers Eid guidelines on sacrificial meat:

  Father Inayat Bernard, rector of Lahore's Sacred Heart Cathedral, condemned those who term the Muslim feast as "the devil's sacrifice."
  "Such misconceptions are spread by semi-literate church leaders during this time of the year. They use selected Biblical verses to prove that this feast honors the devil," he told his congregation on Aug. 19.

  "This is Sunnat-e-Ibrahimi (Abrahamic tradition) and relates to a prophet who was revered by three major religions. It is a pure diet and there is no harm in eating it. But do not force others to do so.

  "We should abide by cultural norms and share the happiness of our Muslim siblings. It is a part of living the interreligious dialogue as per Vatican Council II teachings. Nothing is haraam (prohibited and sinful) for us except those things that come out of the human body as stated in the Bible.”

  His sermon was part of a church awareness drive as Muslims in Pakistan finalize preparations for the Islamic festival from Aug. 22-24. - Pakistan Church offers Eid guidelines on sacrificial meat

The Church presently lacks an absolute
definitive answer on the subject: In unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas. End result would be that it is permitted to eat such foodstuffs, but at the same time scandals should also be avoided if occasioned in some particular circumstance.

Addendum*

What exactly do Muslims say when they slaughter halal animals?

It is more exactly the recitation of one of their verses: "In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful".

  The Basmala (Arabic: بسملة basmalah), also known by its incipit Bismillāh (Arabic: بِاسم الله, "In the name of God")[1], is the Islamic phrase bi-smi llāhi r-raḥmāni r-raḥīm بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمٰنِ الرَّحِيْمِ "In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful".

  This is the phrase recited before each surah (chapter) of the Qur'an – except for the ninth. It is used by Muslims in various contexts (for instance, during daily prayer) and is used in over half of the constitutions of countries where Islam is the official religion or more than half of the population follows Islam, usually the first phrase in the preamble, including those of Afghanistan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brunei, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Maldives, Pakistan, Tunisia, and the United Arab Emirates. - Basmala (Wikipedia)

The method of slaughter is as follows:

  The food must come from a supplier that uses halal practices. Dhabīḥah (ذَبِيْحَة) is the prescribed method of slaughter for all meat sources, excluding fish and other sea-life, per Islamic law. This method of slaughtering animals consists of using a well-sharpened knife to make a swift, deep incision that cuts the front of the throat, the carotid artery, trachea, and jugular veins. The head of an animal that is slaughtered using halal methods is aligned with the qiblah. In addition to the direction, permitted animals should be slaughtered upon utterance of the Islamic prayer Bismillah "in the name of God". Halal (Wikipedia)

Arabic-speaking Christians sometimes use the name Basmala to refer to the Christian Trinitarian formula "In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit", as in the tradition of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.


How should Christians participate in a democracy? There is currently a debate in my country, Australia, about gay marriage. Amongst those who believe homosexual sex is wrong, there is a split with regards the correct approach. Some say that Christians should not seek to legislate their values onto non-Christians. Others say that Christians, as members of a democracy, have every right to seek to have their values legislated.

Which approach is correct?

If we believed that Christianity was merely a good way to live, then there might be a justification for simply adhering to a "live and let live" philosophy such as it pertains to society and social issues.  But it's not; rather Christianity is the expression of God's plan of salvation for a fallen creation, and our moral code is the expression of God's perfect and absolute moral law.
As Christians, we are called to be the "salt of the earth" and the "light of the world":

Matthew 5:13-16
13 “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.
14 “You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.

Salt is a natural preservative, slowing down the spoiling of food - it's not about changing the taste of the food it's about inhibiting the speed at which it rots.  Additionally, a light dispels darkness - where there is light, darkness ceases to reign and dominate.
The effect of Christians on society as a whole should be to improve society as a whole.  This mandate is, therefore, a command to have an impact on society, drawing general society to be a better reflection of God and his law, not simply a call to evangelize.  Part of that is to have a social and political impact on society.
Furthermore, there is ample evidence in scripture that entirely reprobate societies are subject to God's judgement (witness Sodom and Gomorrah, the Noahdic flood, the Canaanites, etc).  It is also worthwhile to examine the rise and fall of all empires in history; nearly all mark the end of their influence with reprobate societies, in particular of a sexual nature.
Apart from that, Christians have historically been deeply involved in society and social issues.  This is because Christians "impose" their "values" onto those around them - specifically that all humans have inherent dignity and inherent "God-given" rights in keeping with that dignity.
So, I would say that Christians have a moral duty and obligation to have an impact on their society.  Being involved in social-political issues, including law-making, is a part of that.
Now that being said, we do have to be careful of exactly what stand to take and how we go about taking it.


Who is Father or God in Christianity The following are some lines in which Jesus (Peace be upon him) mentions "Father" or "God".

Is Islam we consider "Father" or "God" to be referring to Allah as Jesus (Peace be upon him) is considered to be a prophet of Allah.

I would like to know what these lines are referring to in Christianity:

  My Father, who has given them to me,  is greater than all;  no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand.—John 10:29 (NIV)

  "You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.—John 14:28 (NIV)

  But if it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God  has come upon you.—Matthew 12:28 (NIV)

  About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”).—Matthew 27:46 (NIV) (parallel in Mark 15:34)

  But if I drive out demons by the finger of God,  then the kingdom of God  has come upon you.—Luke 11:20 (NIV)

Also in the next one it is said by Jesus (Peace be upon him) that "he who sent me".

  By myself I can do nothing;  I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just,  for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me. John 5:30

This is a pretty important question, so it will take some time to address.

Yes, Jesus refers to God as Father, and the Father did, indeed, send Jesus.  However, Jesus Himself claimed to be God.  This is only reconcilable as we understand the Trinity.

First of all, it should be noted that most Christians do not believe that God (the Father) had sexual relations with God (the Mother) to produce Jesus (the Son).  To most Christians, this is as unthinkable as it is for Muslims.

Understanding the Trinity

The image of God is seen not only in mankind, but in all of creation, as every creation reflects the image of its creator.  This answer reveals something about me.

The Physical Universe is itself a trinity, consisting of 1) Time, 2) Space, and 3) Matter.  The three coexist, and one cannot exist without the other two.
Time is a trinity as well, consisting of 1) past, 2) present, and 3) future.  The past is not the present; the present is not the future; the future is not the past.
Space is also a trinity, existing in three dimensions--length, width, and height.
Matter also consists of three distinct forms--1) solid, 2) liquid, and 3) gas.  Water (H20 - 3 molecules/one substance) coexists as ice, water and vapor.
Mankind is a trinity as well, consisting of 1) body, 2) soul, and 3) spirit.  One's soul is not his body; his body is not his spirit; and his spirit is not his body.

So, creation reflects the image of its Creator, as can be seen in many different ways.  God is understood by most Christians to be a Trinity--Father, Son, and Spirit.

The relationship of "Son" to "Father" does indicate reproduction or time with God, who is beyond time, space, and matter (since He created those).  The Father sends the Son (and the Son sends the Spirit).  So, there is a Divine Order, but not Divine generation.

Even in the Old Testament, God says, "Let Us make man in Our image, in Our likeness."  Genesis 1:26  The Koran affirms that God's word cannot be changed, so both the Old and New Testaments can be trusted.

Jesus is God

John 1:1-14 is fairly explicit.  Here, Jesus is introduced to us with the title "The Word", who was 1) in the beginning, 2) was with God, and who 3) was God.  The Word became a man.  This reveals that it is Jesus who was the Word who became a man and lived among us.
In John 8:58, Jesus identifies Himself by the name with which He introduced Himself to Moses in Exodus 3--the I AM.  The people responded by picking up stones to stone Him, because they knew exactly what He was claiming, and that was not merely that He was 2,000 years old, but that He was God.
Also, the Jews proclaimed that the very reason they wanted Him crucified was that He claimed to be God.  (John 19:7)
In Revelation 1, Jesus also calls Himself "The Alpha and the Omega, the Almighty".

Conclusion

So, again, Jesus is "The Son"--not that He was conceived by a father and mother, but that this is His relationship to the First Person of the Trinity, the Father.

God eternally exists as a Trinity, just as the physical universe itself, time, space, matter, and we ourselves all exist as trinities, reflecting our Creator.

REFERENCES

  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3  All things were
  made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was
  made...  14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have
  seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of
  grace and truth. John 1:1-3, 14 ESV

  Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”  John 8:58 ESV

  The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has made himself the Son of God.”  John 19:7

  “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”  Revelation 1:8 ESV*

  Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of
  the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over
  every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in
  his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he
  created them.  Genesis 1:26-27 ESV

  Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also
  of the tree of life and eat, and live forever”  Genesis 3:22 ESV


What is the biblical argument against having a concubine? It is generally accepted that "having a concubine" = "not socially accepted." However,

Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.
Having concubines was mentioned in the Old Testament.
I cannot find any New Testament verse against having concubines.

Thus, the question:

What is the scriptural evidence against a man having a concubine?

Overseers and deacons are told to be a one woman man in the pastoral epistles, and Christians are told to model the behavior of these men. (1 Timothy 3:12)

Additionally, Ephesians 5 roots the institution of marriage in creation and demonstrates that its intent was always to point to the profound mystery revealed: Christ's marriage to the church. As a picture of a healthy monogamous marriage in pre-fallen creation, it demonstrates that the creation ideal of marriage applies to Christian marriages.

As Jesus said that certificates of divorce were allowed due to hardness of heart (Matthew 19:8) but in the beginning it was not so, he demonstrates that for a time, these non-ideal marriages were permitted though they were never a good thing. As people indwelled by the Spirit, they were expected to be in line with the restoration of creation, and the modeling of the Christ/Church marriage.

Finally, Calvin himself denounced Lamech and Laban as perverters of the original mandate for having one wife in his commentary on Genesis.


How was circumcision practiced in Jesus' time? Both John the Baptist and Jesus were circumcised on the 8th day, according to Old Testament laws.

Luke 1:57-60 English Standard Version (ESV)

  Now the time came for Elizabeth to give birth, and she bore a son. And her neighbors and relatives heard that the Lord had shown great mercy to her, and they rejoiced with her. And on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child. And they would have called him Zechariah after his father, but his mother answered, “No; he shall be called John.”

Luke 2:21-39 English Standard Version (ESV)

  And at the end of eight days, when he was circumcised, he was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb.

Did a priest come to the home to perform the circumcision?  Were there formal traditions or prayers recited, and if so, what do we know about them and how do we know about them?

I got some interesting discussion in the comments when I asked this question at Mi Yodeya.

The comments reflect various thoughts on whether it would have been practiced the same in Jesus' time as compared to today, according to the Jewish law (halacha), and why it matters (or doesn't).  There were also some incomplete answers in the comments, such as quotes of prayers or blessings that might be said and indications of who is qualified to perform the circumcision.

There was a link for an informative article about how circumcision is practiced today.  I accepted the answer at Mi Yodeya.  You can view it at this link:

https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/86533/how-was-brit-milah-practiced-during-the-first-century


Into what eschatological category do the teachings of the Catholic Church fit? I don’t think I’ve heard much from Catholics on the topic. It seems that they would be removed from the dispensational-premillennialism hysteria, but haven’t heard many speak on it one way or another.

The eschatological summary which speaks of the "four last things" (death, judgment, heaven, and hell) is popular rather than scientific. For systematic treatment it is best to distinguish between (A) individual and (B) universal and cosmic eschatology, including under

  (A):
  death;
  the particular judgment;
  heaven, or eternal happiness;
  purgatory, or the intermediate state;
  hell, or eternal punishment;
  and under

  (B):
  the approach of the end of the world;
  the resurrection of the body;
  the general judgment; and
  the final consummation of all things.

  The superiority of Catholic eschatology consists in the fact that, without professing to answer every question that idle curiosity may suggest, it gives a clear, consistent, satisfying statement of all that need at present be known, or can profitably be understood, regarding the eternal issues of life and death for each of us personally, and the final consummation of the cosmos of which we are a part.

From:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05528b.htm


Taking shoes off before closing a deal - is there an history evidence? In bible (Ruth 4,7) it's written that before closing a deal, it was used that one of the sides took his shoes off:

  Now this was the manner in former time in Israel concerning redeeming and concerning changing, for to confirm all things; a man plucked off his shoe, and gave it to his neighbour: and this was a testimony in Israel.

In Talmud there is a debate on which side took his shoes off. One says it was Boaz (Buyer), and the second opinion says it was the second side (seller).

My question is if we can find some evidence in the history science which can supports one of the opinions?

Since Boaz is taken by many (if not most) to be a figure of Christ and Ruth as a figure of the Church and since the man with one shoe is taken to be a figure of (some say) the first covenant or the legal rule as such, it does matter if there is thought to be ambiguity in regard to the issue of the shoe.

  Therefore the kinsman said unto Boaz, Buy it for thee. So he drew off his shoe. Ruth 4:8 KJV

The referent (or antecedent) is 'kinsman'. The kinsman said ...

Although Boaz is mentioned next (said unto Boaz) it does not mean that the referent (antecedent) immediately changes to 'Boaz'. Grammatically, the referent/antecedent is still 'kinsman'.

It is he who takes off the shoe.

The question is, whose shoe did the kinsman loose ? His own or Boaz' ?

This is made clear by Deuteronomy :

  Then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother's house. Deuteronomy 25:9 :

Here the refused woman takes off the shoe of the kinsman who will not redeem and she spits in his face for not doing his brotherly duty towards her own (now deceased) husband.

But the kinsman of Boaz (nearer in relationship to Ruth and thus having precedence) admits of his own refusal and takes off his own shoe.

(Whether he spits in his own face is not recorded by the scripture.)

There is, of course, the issue of Ruth being not born of Israel but being a Moabitess. Therefore what rights does she have ?

Boaz does all that is needed for the Gentile woman and the man with one shoe does absolutely nothing. He has taken off his shoe and will make no further progress.