Was Herod Antipas an official king? There are different Herods in the Bible. We have Herod the Great who ruled when Jesus was born and Herod Antipas, who ruled later.

I have seen in several places that Herod the Great is called "king" and Herod Antipas is called "tetrarch", apart from some texts written with simple language like Gospel of Mark where he is also called king.

My question is – was Herod Antipas a true, "full" king? Or does his title suggest that he was someone lower than king? Was he coronated? Is a tetrarch a king or something more like a prince or duke?

Herod Antipas was the son of Herod the Great and younger brother of Archelaus (both by Malthrace). Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great. Herod the Great's initial political career was as the the governor of Galilee, and later he was appointed as king over Judea by Caesar Octavius (Augustus). After he died, there was some conflict as to which of his sons were to become king of Judea (ultimately, none of them became king over all of Judea as he was). Herod made an amendment to his will just days before his death indicating that Archelaus should be king, but it didn't play out that way.1

  Herod had written six wills during the course of his life. The sixth will was actually a codicil of his fifth will. Since this final version had been written only five days before his death, it had not been ratified by the emperor. Therefore, although Archelaus took over the leadership at Herod’s death he did not use the title king (Antiq. 17.8.4 §§202–3; War 2.1.1 §§2–3). After the Passover he and Antipas set out for Rome to dispute the last two wills, leaving Philip behind to govern. Archelaus wanted to convince Augustus that he should ratify the will made just before Herod died, because it represented his wish. On the other hand, Antipas sought to convince the emperor that Herod had not been of sound mind and body when he wrote the last will. While they were in Rome there was a revolt in Palestine, and a Jewish delegation arrived in Rome to ask autonomy for the nation and for union with the province of Syria. After much debate Augustus devised a compromise. He made Archelaus ethnarch (meaning “ruler of a nation”) over Idumaea, Judea, and Samaria. He made Antipas tetrarch (meaning “ruler of a quarter”) of Galilee and Perea and Philip tetrarch over Gaulanitis, Trachonitis, Batanea, and Paneas (Antiq. 17.11.4 §§317–20; War 2.6.3 §§93–100). Thus, Antipas, while losing his bid to be king, did prevent Archelaus from ruling the entire nation.2

So to clearly answer the question, Herod Antipas was "ruler of a quarter" (tetrarch) over Galilee and Perea. I've highlighted these regions in red/pink in the map below.

3

1 Walter A. Elwell and Barry J. Beitzel, Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988), 967-8.

2 Ibid., 968. I linked all of the primary sources cited in the Encyclopedia to the English translations of the works available for free on the Christian Classics Ethereal Library so that you can read them for yourself.

3 Map from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perea#/media/File:First_century_Iudaea_province.gif (edited to highlight Galilee and Perea).


From the Reformed perspective, what is the meaning of the tearing of the veil in Matt. 27:51? Matt. 27:51,

  "And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;"  (KJV)

Also from Mark 15:38,

  "And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom."  (KJV)

Others have maintained that the veil of the temple was different than the veil of the tabernacle; and that the veil of the temple referred only to a first veil hung before the entrance to the temple from the inner court.

But, the Pulpit Commentary at BibleHub offers:

  " The veil of the temple (τοῦ ναοῦ). There were two principal veils in the present temple - one between the vestibule and the holy place, and one other which is that here referred to, a constituent part of the edif[i]ce. This was the veil between the holy place and the holy of holies, which was moved aside only once a year to admit the high priest to the shrine on the great Day of Atonement (Exodus 26:33). It was large and costly, some sixty feet high, and made of rich materials. "  Source: here

And, Vincent's Word Studies offers:

  "According to the Rabbis this was a handbreadth in thickness, and woven of seventy-two twisted plaits, each plait consisting of twenty-four threads. It was sixty feet long and thirty wide. Two of them were made every year, and according to the exaggerated language of the time it needed three hundred priests to manipulate it. This veil was the one which covered the entrance to the holy of Holies, and not, as has been asserted, the veil which hung before the main entrance to the sanctuary."  Same source as above.

The interlinear Greek uses "σκηνὴ" or "skene" for both "tabernacles" in Heb. c. 9 which shows no distinction in a temple vs. a tabernacle for the holy and most holy places.  But, in Matt. 27:51 the Greek is "ναοῦ" or "naou" for "temple".

Were there two veils, and if so which one was torn?  And, what is the significance of the torn veil?

This subject is dealt with very thoroughly in The Temple and the Church's Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God (New Studies in Biblical Theology)  by Greg Beale.

From a Reformed perspective, the temple and tabernacle are interchangeable as the dwelling place of God. The curtain that was torn was the curtain into the Most Holy Place, the manifested presence of God, his throne on earth. (cf. 1 Sam. 4:4 Where God is 'enthroned between the cherubim' of the Ark.) Heb. 9:3 "Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place". The first curtain separated the Holy Place, which was entered daily, from the courtyard.

The significance is awesome. After the fall, Adam & Eve were driven out of the original tabernacle - or divine dwelling - which was Eden. Before they were driven out, God promised a Savior who would undo the Fall (Gen. 3:15). God instructed Moses to build a dwelling place, but even then it was unapproachable except by the High Priest, one day a year. Reformed Theology has always understood the temple to be symbolic, and this symbolized that access to the presence of God was not yet available.

When Jesus came, God became flesh and made his dwelling among us, lit. 'tabernacled among us' John 1:14. When the body of Christ was broken, all separation was broken with it. We now, though vile, arrogant, and filthy, can enter the very presence of the Living God, and not just once a year but at any moment. This is exactly what Hebrews goes on later to say "Therefore, brothers and sisters, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, and since we have a great priest over the house of God,let us draw near to God with a sincere heart and full assurance of faith." Heb 10:19-22


According to Catholicism, is there a place of reverence for Hagar in Christianity? Genesis Chapters 16 and 21 give an account of Hagar, the Egyptian handmaid who was given in marriage to Abraham, bore him a son, Ishmael, and  was later turned away so as not to stake claim of inheritance.  Gen 16:8 and 21:7 show that God was in touch with Hagar  through his angel, and had compassion for her.
Some Jewish writings claim that the woman named Keturah whom Abraham married at the age of 100 plus after the death of Sarai, was in fact Hagar with a new name.
At Galatians 4:22-25, St. Paul also mentions the name of Hagar, albeit  in an allegory.
In retrospect, one feels that Hagar (who,  judging by modern standards,  could have won a legal suit against Abraham) did not get what was due to her  and was made to suffer for no fault of hers. She in deed deserves some reverence for her meek suffering.   My question therefore is: Is there a place of reverence for Hagar in Christianity? Do the teachings of Catholic Church mention the meekness of  Hagar as something worth emulating?

According to Catholicism, is there a place of reverence for Hagar in Christianity?
Do the teachings of Catholic Church mention the meekness of Hagar as something worth emulating?
The short answer is no.
Hagár, the Egyptian servant of Sarah, who gave birth Abraham’s firstborn Ishmael, the progenitor of the Ishmaelites holds no particular honour or reverence within the Catholic Church or even in Christianity in general for that matter.
St. Augustine of Hippo referred to Hagar as symbolizing an "earthly city", or the sinful condition of humanity.
Later on both St. Thomas Aquinas and John Wycliff expounded on the same point of view of St. Augustine about Hagár.

Hagar is a biblical person in the Book of Genesis. She was an Ancient Egyptian servant of Sarah, who gave her to Abraham to bear a child. The product of the union was Abraham's firstborn, Ishmael, the progenitor of the Ishmaelites, generally taken to be the Arabians. Various commentators have connected her to the Hagrites (sons of Agar), perhaps claiming her as their eponymous ancestor.
The name of the Egyptian servant Hagar is documented in the Book of Genesis; she is acknowledged in all Abrahamic religions. Hagar is alluded to in the Quran, and Islam acknowledges her as Abraham's second wife. According to Islamic tradition, Hagar the Egyptian is named as the "Grand Mother of Arabians" and her husband Abraham the Mesopotamian as the "Grand Father of Arabians".
Christianity
In the New Testament, Paul the Apostle made Hagar's experience an allegory of the difference between law and grace in his Epistle to the Galatians chapter 4 (Galatians 4:21–31). Paul links the laws of the Torah, given on Mount Sinai, to the bondage of the Israelite people, implying that it was signified by Hagar's condition as a bondswoman, while the "free" heavenly Jerusalem is signified by Sarah and her child. The Biblical Mount Sinai has been referred to as "Agar", possibly named after Hagar.
Augustine of Hippo referred to Hagar as symbolizing an "earthly city", or sinful condition of humanity: "In the earthly city (symbolised by Hagar) ... we find two things, its own obvious presence and the symbolic presence of the heavenly city. New citizens are begotten to the earthly city by nature vitiated by sin but to the heavenly city by grace freeing nature from sin." (The City of God 15:2) This view was expounded on by medieval theologians such as Thomas Aquinas and John Wycliffe. The latter compared the children of Sarah to the redeemed, and those of Hagar to the unredeemed, who are "carnal by nature and mere exiles".
The story of Hagar demonstrates that survival is possible even under harshest conditions.


Do Mormons believe in the Virgin birth taught in the Bible? (LDS) According to Brigham Young, the second prophet and president of the LDS church:

  "The birth of the Savior was as natural as the births of
  our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh
  and blood--was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers."

  (Journal of Discourses, vol. 8, p. 115).

  "I have given you a few leading items upon this subject, but a great
  deal more remains to be told.  Now, remember from this time forth, and
  for ever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost."

  (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 51).

According to Orson Pratt the original member of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles of the Church of the Latter Day Saints:

  The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father.
  Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh,
  must have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and
  Wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the
  lawful wife of God the Father: we use the term lawful Wife, because it
  would be blasphemous in the highest degree to say that He overshadowed
  her or begat the Savior unlawfully.

  (Orson Pratt, The Seer, page 158)

According to Luke 1:26-28:

  31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus.

  32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The
  Lord God will give him the throne of his father David,

  33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom
  will never end.”

  34 “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”

  35 The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the
  power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born
  will be called[a] the Son of God.

  36 Even Elizabeth your relative is
  going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be
  unable to conceive is in her sixth month.  37 For no word from God will
  ever fail.”

Since Brigham Young says Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost and Orson Pratt says Jesus required a mother and a father, does that mean the Virgin Birth spoken about in the Bible is refuted from an LDS perspective?

Yes.  Latter-Day Saints believe in the Virgin birth.

Perhaps one random sample from an official LDS Church manual called The Life and Teaching of Jesus and His Apostles Instructors Manual (Which can be found here) will help.  It says the following:

  The Significance of the Virgin Birth (A Discussion and Chalkboard
  Diagram)

  The teacher might wish to point out that many people in the Christian
  world want to believe in Jesus, but only as a great human being, only
  as a great man. They feel uncomfortable about the concept of the
  miraculous, virgin birth. Yet if this is denied, all of the Atonement
  must be rejected as well. It was the inheritance that came from a
  mortal mother and a divine Father that made the Atonement possible.

The confusion may come where we believe that God is his Literal, physical father.  There is no doctrine as to how this occurred.  I know of no statements of God laying with Mary.  Only that God is His Father, and Mary is His mother.  Any speculation as to how that occurred is not doctrinal, nor is it taught.  Mary was still a Virgin at Christ's birth.

Was it artificial insemination? Was it a miraculous transformation of the egg to a complete set of chromosomes? Was His zygote somehow embedded in her via the Holy Spirit?  There is no doctrine, nor even official speculation as to how this may have occurred.  Frankly I am not really even aware of any non-official speculation as to the method within the LDS faith.

When the Journal of Discourses is used as a point of LDS doctrine, one must call it into question.  These talks were not recorded except in shorthand and notes, and reconstructed by an individual for profit.  They were not produced by the LDS Church, despite the talks being by official sources.  Significant portions were never even approved of by the speakers.

There is a whole line of research on this topic, and it is amazing what was left out and added to the talks based on the original shorthand texts.

That doesn't mean there isn't a lot of good in there, and things one can learn, but it does mean that one should probably look to LDS.org to get accurate doctrinal points rather than the JoD.

A great discussion on the JoD with modern understanding can  be found in this podcast episode.  It gives some scholarly direction as to how to look at the JoD.

Today current members may refer to the JoD, but it has been relegated to more of a curiosity and a tool than a source of doctrine.


How many different groups are there that base their teachings on the Book of Mormon and/or Joseph Smith? I am aware of the Latter Day Saints and the Reformed Latter Day Saints, both of which, to my understanding, recognize the Book of Mormon as Scripture and follow the teachings of Joseph Smith.  I have heard, though, that there are other groups as well.

How many groups/denominations recognize the Book of Mormon as Scripture or follow the teachings of Joseph Smith?  Also, who are they (What do they call themselves?)

As you have said, there are essentially two major sects in the Latter-day Saint movement which hold the Book of Mormon to be scripture and a base for teachings. They are:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
The Community of Christ (descendent of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is a group that did not migrate to Utah)

The former represents the largest sect of the Latter-day Saint movement whose origins are from Utah and Brigham Young's leadership in the 19th century. The latter represents the largest sect among those that did not recognize Young's succession. Members of these sects represent the vast majority of adherents to Mormonism.
Additionally, there are several hundred LDS sects that can essentially be categorized as belonging to one of several origins:

Fundamentalist sects which broke off from Mormonism in the 19th century over issues related to the abolishment of polygamy. Many still practice it. Most are headquartered in the intermountain west.
Josephite sects who trace their leadership through at least a few of Joseph Smith's descendents. Most are headquartered near Missouri.
Sects who recognized some other successor to Smith that was not Young nor any of Smith's posterity. Most are also headquartered near Missouri or thereabouts.
Various breakoff sects from modern Mormonism over various issues (i.e. Homosexuality, etc.) Most of these have been founded in the 20th and 21st centuries and are a breakoff of the largest sect (the first one listed above).
Those which have completely independent origins and are merely founded on some Latter-day Saint beliefs.

As far as I am aware, all of these sects accept the Book of Mormon to be true with various degrees of advocacy for its use. The Community of Christ, for example, in recent years has reduced its emphasis on the Book of Mormon. Most, however, have different views on what literature originated by Smith is official canon. Some, for example, do not accept some or all of the Doctrine and Covenants or Pearl of Great Price. Perhaps it is safe to say that all of them claim to base their teachings on those of Joseph Smith, and hold him to be a prophet. However, what this means in the context of each sect's teachings will vary wildly.
Wikipedia has an excellent summary of modern and defunct LDS sects and their origins.


Are pride and boasting ever okay? We are proud of our son for being able to write his name, and my wife was boasting that she helped him learn to write it.  Ultimately, we both know it's from God that he is able to learn this skill and my wife has the ability to teach him.
I know that pride and boasting in ourselves is not good (see verses below), but as long as we ultimately acknowledge God in our pride and boasting, is it acceptable to do this?
Jeremiah 9:23–24 (NIV)

    23 This is what the LORD says:

          “Let not the wise boast of their wisdom
          or the strong boast of their strength
          or the rich boast of their riches,
    24 but let the one who boasts boast about this:
          that they have the understanding to know me,
    that I am the LORD, who exercises kindness,
          justice and righteousness on earth,
           for in these I delight,”
                      declares the LORD.

James 4:6 (NIV)

    6 But he gives us more grace. That is why Scripture says:

           “God opposes the proud
           but shows favor to the humble.”

To supplement your verses on proper/inproper boasting, see Phil 3:4,7-8 and Gal 6:13,14.
To answer your question, I first quote

  In all your ways acknowledge Him, and he shall direct thy paths
   Prov. 3:6

Especially if you honor God, (as you say "as long as we ultimately acknowledge God") it is good to praise others, or to be satisfied in someone or something, even your own accomplishments. We mustn't, however honor God with our lips while our heart is far from Him. (Isaiah 29:13)

When the Lord saw what He had created and called it good. He was proud of His creation. He called it good. Even to Satan, God says, "Have you seen my servant Job?" and in Zeph 3:17 He rejoices over His people with singing.

If you read the words of many righteous men in scriptures, they acknowledge what they have done with the Lord's help. David did no wrong in 1 Samuel 17:34-37 when he said to Saul

  Thy servant kept his father's sheep, and there came a lion, and a
  bear, and took a lamb out of the flock: And I went out after him, and
  smote him, and delivered it out of his mouth: and when he arose
  against me, I caught him by his beard, and smote him, and slew him.
  Thy servant slew both the lion and the bear: and this uncircumcised
  Philistine shall be as one of them, seeing he hath defied the armies
  of the living God. David said moreover, The LORD that delivered me out
  of the paw of the lion, and out of the paw of the bear, he will
  deliver me out of the hand of this Philistine. And Saul said unto
  David, Go, and the LORD be with thee.
  (emphasis added)

So, your wife can be proud to say with full assurance that she is teaching your son to read. I praise God with you that she has that ability!


Is 'sola gratia' as a soteriology traceable in the period leading to the Protestant Reformation? Protestants often consider the Roman Catholic church to have significantly distorted the gospel. Were there Christians prior to the Reformation who had essentially the same understanding of the doctrines of salvation (particularly sola gratia) as the later Reformers did? I'm interested in people between Augustine (approx. 400 AD) and Luther (1517 AD).

Another theologian who anticipated some of the important thoughts of the Reformation, including sola gratia, was Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153), who was frequently cited by both Luther and Calvin.


What is the biblical basis for praying to the Holy Spirit? There is a question about praying to Jesus already, but I noticed there is no question about praying to the Holy Spirit. What is the biblical basis for praying to the third person of the trinity?

What is the biblical basis for praying to the Holy Spirit?
There is no clear biblical basis for praying to the Holy Spirit. Christians the world over do it, but the Scriptures give us no clear examples of it either.
The Trinity shows us that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all God together as one. When we pray to any of them, we pray to God. The most important thing to remember is that God desires to be in relationship with us and that requires prayer.
Who are we to pray to as Christians? Are we supposed to pray to Jesus? Or are we supposed to pray to the Father? What about the Holy Spirit? Can we pray to the Holy Spirit?
The most prominent pattern of prayer in the New Testament is to the Father, in the name of Jesus.

In that day you will not question Me about anything. Truly, truly, I say to you, if you ask the Father for anything in My name, He will give it to you. Until now you have asked for nothing in My name; ask and you will receive, so that your joy may be made full. (John 16:23-24).

Prayers can be offered to both the Father and the Son. What about the Holy Spirit? While there are no prayers in the New Testament addressed directly to the Holy Spirit, neither are there any prohibitions. Admittedly, both of those statements are arguments from silence. There were really two questions: 1) Are there any Scriptural references about praying to the Holy Spirit? That one’s easy … “No” not that I could find. 2) Is there anything (in Scripture) that suggests we could pray to the Holy Spirit? I would cautiously say, “Yes.”

Should You Pray to the Holy Spirit?
The short answer, I believe, is that there is nothing wrong with offering a prayer to the Holy Spirit, since God the Spirit is, of course, fully God, just as is God the Father and God the Son. However, most prayers in the New Testament and in the church of the second and third centuries were to God the Father, with a few exceptions.
I recently read an article by Boris Paschke entitled: “Praying to the Holy Spirit in Early Christianity.” His conclusions include the following:

This article studied praying to the Holy Spirit in early Christianity, with the following results: While the New Testament neither contains prayers to the Holy Spirit nor references to such prayers, later early Christian sources from the Second and Third Centuries AD contain at the least a few passages that are relevant for the topic. In Tertullian’s De oration 12, spiritus sanctus is envisaged as addressee of Christian prayer. However, it remains unclear if this Latin term refers particularly to the third person of the Trinity or to God in general. In De baptism 8, Tertullian states that spirit epiclesis were components of the baptismal services he was familiar with. At the beginning of his homilies on the book of Leviticus, Origen encourages addressing not only Jesus but also the Holy Spirit in prayers asking for understanding the biblical text (Orig. Hom. Lev. I 1). In Jesus’s hymn and round dance (which is found in chapters 94–96 of the Acts of John) it is probably not the Holy Spirit but rather Jesus who is addressed with the epithet ‘Spirit’. The Acts of Thomas contain two prayers to the Holy Spirit, namely the spirit epiclesis in chapters 27 and 50. However, it is possible that these epiclesis not only ask the Holy Spirit but also Jesus Christ to come. In view of these findings, it seems (1) that prayers to the Holy Spirit were very rare in early Christianity; and (2) that the Holy Spirit was addressed either alone (Tertullian De baptism 8) or together with Jesus Christ (Orig. Hom. Lev. I 1).[2]

So, what about our practice? My recommendation is that, following the biblical pattern and the pattern of the early church, we should normally address our prayers to God the Father, but still allow occasional addressing of prayers to Jesus, that is, to God the Son, as well as occasional prayers to the Holy Spirit, that is, to God the Spirit. But since the common pattern is to address God the Father in prayer, I would suggest that praying to God the Son and God the Spirit should focus more upon the works that are specifically connected in Scripture to those persons of the Godhead. Thus, the occasional prayer to Jesus might look something like: “Jesus, thank you for dying as a substitute on the cross in our place,” or “Lord Jesus, we long for your second coming” (cf. 1 Cor. 16:22 “Our Lord, Come!”). The occasional prayer to the Holy Spirit could be: “Spirit, fill us with power to speak your word with boldness,” or “Illumine your Word as we read it, and help us know how to apply it.”


Why did Pilate insist on writing 'Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews'? From John 19 (KJV):

19 And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.
20 This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.
21 Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews.
22 Pilate answered, What I have written I have written.

The chief priests appear to be protesting at what Pilate has written, presumably because it appears to be affirming what they wish to deny. They ask him write instead that 'he said, I am King of the Jews' - notably they do not ask him to remove the title altogether, or to write a denial.
Why does Pilate affirm what he has written?

Crucifixion was more than a method of execution; it was a public execution, and a long, slow, exceptionally painful one at that.  Half the point was to make an example of the condemned so they could act as a deterrent.

Part of the process was to identify the person and their crime, which was done by putting a sign on the cross.  Thing is, Pilate couldn't actually identify any crime that Jesus had committed.  But the Jewish leaders were adamant about sending him to the cross, and when they threatened to raise complaints with Caesar--which they could have done, successfully, as he was not the best of governors--he backed down.  Writing "The King of the Jews" on his sign as the reason he was being executed appears to be one last, somewhat passive-aggressive, act of protest against their unfair execution they were forcing him into.


In Hebrews 1:10 Jesus is being addressed as the Creator which is God himself in Genesis Hebrews 1 is a chapter that is addressed to the Son, which is Jesus himself. But one interesting verse addresses Jesus as the Creator, this is verse 10:
And,

    “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning,
        and the heavens are the work of your hands;

Throughout the Gospel book, the only Lord that was mentioned is Jesus. Moreover, the the title of the Hebrews 1 says it so.
Is this a strong evidence of the Trinitarian concept, that both Jesus and The Father IS God himself?
(Note i used the word "IS" not "ARE" cause the bible repeatedly mentions that there IS only one God but is infinitely complex and not that easy to grasp)
There is an non-Trinitarian answer here. I would like to know more about the Trinitarian concept on this matter.

Absolutely, Jesus Christ is the creator even according to His own Father. Since the Son is the Father's agent in creating the universe and the ages through which it progresses (see 1:2), these words about Jehovah the Creator are fittingly used of Jesus Christ the Son.
In Psalm 102:24 it is "God" who is addressed, but in 102:22 He is identified as "Lord," which is the translation of the Hebrew word for "Jehovah."
In the Septuagint He is addressed as "Lord," that is, kurion. Consistent with his understanding of the Old Testament the writer of the Hebrews recognized Jesus is God and freely used passages of Scripture which speak about Jehovah in talking about Him.
Who else but the Son is both Creator and Lord? Jesus Christ existed before the universe because He created it. It is not everlasting; He is. Hebrews 1;10 is in perfect harmony regarding the Son at John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:16, Revelation 3:14 and here at verse 10.
Since He is Jehovah God, there is no reason to puzzle or wonder why created beings like the angels will bow down and worship Him, confessing Him Lord of lords. This also means that Jesus Christ is not an angel like some organizations teach.
Now, Acts 2:36 was brought up stating, "God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both LORD and Messiah." First of all Jesus was born "Lord, Savior and Christ the Lord at Luke 2:11. "for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, WHO IS Christ the Lord."
What Acts 2:36 is teaching is the resurrection of Jesus Christ revealed or established He was Lord and the Christ/Messiah. The Apostle Paul confirms this at Romans 1:3-4. "concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, (why bring up according to the flesh?) Vs4, who was DECLARED the Son of God with power (how?) by the resurrection from the dead, according to the spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ OUR LORD."


Why was Jeremiah called the "weeping prophet" I would like to know why Jeremiah is called the "weeping prophet"

I have looked in Scripture, but I cannot find the answer.

The extent to which Jeremiah is known as the 'weeping prophet' is so entrenched that there is even an Englsh word - jeremiad ("a sad lamentation") - that enshrines the concept.

Jeremiah's weeping traditionally comes from his authorship of the book of Lamentations (his other book!), which is a jeremiad (if you'll pardon the pun), mourning the capture and destruction of Jerusalem in 587BC.  If you read Lamentations, you will hear Jeremiah's anguish, and yes, tears, in his works.


Visitors giving money to the church (I apologize in advance if this question isn't appropriate for Christianity S.E. .... this seems to be a trending problem.  With that said, I believe the ideas of the question are appropriate and I invite anyone that thinks this question is inappropriate to edit it so it's rephrased more appropriately).

From my experience, many visitors at churches feel that they need to give money and most churches (not all) do this by passing a collection plate of some sort, this method seems to even embarrass or coerce visitors into donating to the church.  I feel that the people that should give their money are regular visitors that genuinely want to help the church (regardless if they are believers or not) and members. The reason I think this post is important is because I kind of find it strange when attendance balloons two days out of the year, as does the collection; plus, I think it is discouraging for the average new visitor.  Specifically, I am looking for scripture that will support or refute the claim that the method by which most churches collect money is un-Biblical at worst and awkward at best.

There is no New Testament directive as to the means of collecting gifts , monetary or otherwise.
The question is whether a means of collecting gifts fosters the Biblically directed attitude of giving.

2 Corinthians 9:7 Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

Matthew 6:1 “Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven."

(Note that this is directed toward the motive of giving. If you are giving for human praise, that's all you get. However if you give because it is the right thing to do, you have further reward, even if somebody does see you do it. After all Jesus praised the widow who gave at the Temple in the sight of many).

Personally, I think the current form of collecting offering is for practical fund raising purposes only.


Can theological trends explain reasons for male / female divide in (US) worship? It's been said that women are better represented in the pews of US congregations. This link says it's 61% female.

Questions:

1) Is the ratio this strong if you account for higher female longevity?

2) Has any scholarly study looked at the reasons for the divide as a function of the theological outlook of the congregations?  Such as fundamentalist/revisionist, patriotic/peacenick,  theology of cross/glory, high/low worship style?

The apparent discrepancy in the male to female ratio apparently does not stem from theological or ideological precepts, but from historical happenstance.

Until World War 2 most of the duties around the church were performed by the men of the church.

World War 2 being waged both in Europe and the Pacific required so many men that most if not all churches, were left with to few men to maintain the Buildings and grounds, let alone prepare for services.

Most of the duties around the church were assumed by women, and the churches became a gathering place for them where they met and exchanged news about how the men were faring in the war. There was ample news about battles and such, but things concerning local men, could only be gotten from the letters received by their wives, or parents.

Churches not only became the center for local news but also a place to gather and pray for the men who were serving in the Armed services.

There was also a shortage of many things needed by families, due to the necessity of supplying the troops.

So many lives were lost  in the War that there was virtually no community which went untouched.

The women of the church would comfort and aid the families who lost their husbands, sons, and fathers.

Even after the war ended casualties had been so great that most churches either did not have enough men left to take over church duties, or many of those who returned from the war had sustained injuries that precluded them reassuming those duties.

After World War 2 women kept most of the duties in keeping up the churches, and continue to do so today.

Today women still feel like the church is like family more than men do, and to this day the camaraderie among the churches women, is far greater that that of the men.


In what way was Isaac's blessing on Jacob manifested? In Genesis 27, when elderly Isaac thought he was blessing his son Esau, but he was actually blessing his son Jacob through the deceit of Jacob's mother, he said to Jacob:

  See, the smell of my son is as the smell of a field which the LORD
  hath blessed: Therefore God give thee of the dew of heaven, and the
  fatness of the earth, and plenty of corn and wine: Let people serve
  thee, and nations bow down to thee: be lord over thy brethren, and let
  thy mother's sons bow down to thee: cursed be every one that curseth
  thee, and blessed be he that blesseth thee (Genesis 27:27b-29).

My Bible commentaries don't explain how this blessing was borne out. What do Protestant or Catholic authorities say about how this blessing was fulfilled in Jacob's life?

It's important to keep in mind that the stories about the patriarchs are both stories about individuals and "national origin" stories giving an identity to the whole nation of Israel.

So in the case of Jacob (also known as Israel), the promises get borne out (a) in his great success as a herdsman for his uncle Laban, accumulating a huge amount of personal wealth, (b) in his victorious return to Canaan with numerous wives, sons (who become the twelve tribes of Israel), and servants, (c) in Laban being forced to begrudgingly accept the loss of his most successful servant and his daughters/grandchildren (his attempts to curse/foil Jacob only come back to bite him), (d) in the lives of his children, particularly Joseph, who has a very similar prophecy about brothers bowing down made about him (Genesis 37), and who becomes the vice-ruler of Egypt, resulting in nations bowing down to him as well, and (e) in the nation of Israel itself, especially in its relatively short lived hey-day of regional power over some of its smaller neighbors (David and Solomon's kingdom) before the kingdom divided and eventually went into exile.


Why was the Bible not available to common people in the Medieval period? The Bible was not available in the hands of common people in Medieval times (5th - 15th century). Which of these possible reasons are plausible?

The common people were poor and could not afford to get the Bible.
The Bible was not for sale in the market.
The Catholic Church did not want the common people to read the Bible.
The common people were illiterate.
The common people did not speak Latin.
The people were not pious enough to bother reading the Bible.
The people had a mindset that reading the Bible is the job of scholars or bishops.

Are there any other possible reasons?

Overall, general accessibility to books was difficult for two of the reasons you mention:

The were extremely expensive to make

According to this source, we have the report of a book taking four weeks to copy (by hand, of course, and costing "53 shillings."  At that same point in time, a pig was 10 pence, meaning that one book would have been equivalent to 636 pigs.

Likewise "In Byzantium, annotations from around 900 in the books of Arethas, Archbishop of Caesarea, value his copy of Plato at 21 nomismata and Euclid at 14 nomismata (perhaps not including the parchment). Manual workers in Byzantium were paid 6 to 10 nomismata per year."

That should put some perspective on the value of the materials and labor that were involved in making a book prior to the printing press.
Literacy was extremely low

In England, anyone could avoid prosecution in trial (once anyway), by simply being able to quote Psalm 51.  The thought, derived from Common Law, was that only clergy could read.

This graph below shows literacy rates in France in 1700s, and the remarkable shift in literacy.  At the beginning of the graph, note that only 1 in 3 people could read - and this nearly 300 years after the invention of the printing press highlights how low literacy would have been.

Additionally, however, there was a practical decision made by the church:

Catholic understanding of intrepretation

Finally, the institution of the church understood that people can misread Scripture.  As such, dogmatic interpretation was reserved to priests.  By focusing on those who could read and were trained to explain the Scriptures, the church imposed a sort of "quality control" on that reading.  This was anathema to the Protestant reformers who subscribed to the notion of the Priesthood of All Believers
And, don't forget that the Bible was intended to be read aloud

When the books of the Bible were written, the primary intention was that a trained reader would read the words out loud - It was akin to a playback device to be tied to a reader.  Accusing the church of "control" of the Scriptures here would be like saying that the Catholic Church "controlled" sheet music because not everybody could play the piano.  The truth is, reading a book was a skill not many bothered with.


In modern times, what would happen to a Roman Catholic monk if he were to violate his monastic vows? So, I was watching a documentary about the Codex Gigas, or "Devil's Bible", and it said that the Codex Gigas was written by a single scribe over the course of decades as a way of doing penance of what he did when he was young and stupid. Punishment for breaking monastic vows may involve being walled up alive.

In modern times, what would happen to a monk if he were to violate his monastic vows? Would he have to take on a new calligraphic project of the Bible?

There are several different sets of rules for different communities of monks; and the specific penalties for the monks are dependent on the rule.

Most communities of monks or nuns are governed by one of two sets of rules: the Rule of St. Augustine (of Hippo), and the Rule of St. Benedict (of Nursia). There are also governing documents such as the Statutes of the Carthusians, but these are the two primary documents. Since this particular monk was a Benedictine, let's look at the penalties of the Benedictine Rule.

St. Benedict of Nursia, who lived in the early sixth century, developed a rule by which the monks under his care could live. The Order of St. Benedict has a translation of the Rule online, and the Rule has several sections dealing with how monks are to be disciplined. If a monk is a troublemaker, his superior (probably a prior) is enjoined to discuss the problem with him privately. If the behavior is still a problem, the superior will talk privately with him again. If that doesn't help, he will be called out in front of the community and rebuked publicly. If even that doesn't solve the problem, the monk will be excommunicated: that is, excluded from the community (see Chapter 23 of the Rule).

St. Benedict envisioned two kinds of excommunication: for less serious and more serious faults. For less serious faults, the monk (or sister; the same Rule applies to both male and female communities)

  shall take [his] food alone after the community meal, so that if they eat at the sixth hour, for instance, that [brother] shall eat at the ninth, while if they eat at the ninth hour [he] shall eat in the evening, until by a suitable satisfaction [he] obtains pardon.

("Rule of St. Benedict", Chapter 24)

If a more serious fault is involved, the monk is excluded both from the common meal time and from common worship time. Further, no one is allowed to talk to him or even approach him:

  Let none of the brethren join him either for company or for conversation. Let him be alone at the work assigned him, abiding in penitential sorrow and pondering that terrible sentence of the Apostle where he says that a man of that kind is handed over for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord (1 Cor. 5:5). Let him take his meals alone in the measure and at the hour which the Abbot shall consider suitable for him.

("Rule", Chapter 25)

The abbot of the monastery is enjoined to send spiritual help to the monk, in the hope of helping him and solving the problem. He is also entitled to use corporal punishment ("the rod") in severe cases. I highly doubt this punishment is used any longer, though I have no evidence either way.

The (second to) last resort is to have the community pray for the afflicted brother, in the hope that the Lord will help where the Abbot cannot; but if even this doesn't work, the abbot is told to expel the monk from the monastery:

  But if [he] is not healed even in this way, then let the [Abbot] use the knife of amputation, according to the Apostle's words, "Expel the evil one from your midst" (1 Cor. 5:13), and again, "If the faithless one departs, let [him] depart" (1 Cor. 7:15) lest one diseased sheep contaminate the whole flock.

("Rule", Chapter 28)

I don't see anything so harsh as walling up a monk alive.


Primacy of Andrew in Eastern Orthodoxy I heard this from a Catholic friend of mine: He said, in explaining where Orthodoxy is coming from, that because St. Andrew told his brother Simon about Jesus, he's the real leader of the church and hence the Church which claims its succession from Andrew is the true Church and since that Church is the Orthodox Church, they're the real deal.

Is this 3rd hand, 3rd grade articulation of the origins of Eastern Orthodox apostolic succession and legitimacy even close to what they actually believe?

As an Eastern Orthodox, I've never heard this line of reasoning.

Instead, what is usually discussed is the difference between primacy and supremacy.  In the Orthodox view, among all the bishops, there were five who were regarded as preeminent based on the importance of their sees.  These were:

Rome
Constantinople
Alexandria
Antioch
Jerusalem

The Orthodox recognized Rome as "first among equals", that is, as the preeminent bishop among the five great sees, and among all bishops everywhere.  In disputes, Orthodox would from time to time appeal to Rome.

However, the Orthodox reject the idea that the bishop of Rome is on a level above or superior to other bishops.  All bishops are the successors of the apostles.  There's no reason to suppose that the bishop of Rome has an office that is different in kind from the office of bishop held by all the other bishops.

The significance of Rome is not the Petrine founding of the church there, but simply the fact that it was the capital city of the Roman Empire.  In 381, Constantinople received the second place of honor after Rome, not due to any apostolic heritage, but because it was the second most important city after Rome.


What are some comprehensive, reliable resources to learn about the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church? Dear community members,

I am eager to learn more about the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church as well as about the Oriental Orthodox Communion in general. Please provide resources for someone with no prior knowledge of Christianity.

Thank you very much for your help!

The Oriental Orthodox Church is comprised of six sister churches all of which are in communion with one another. These six churches include

Armenian Orthodox Church
Coptic Orthodox Church
Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Syrian Orthodox Church
Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church

The Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church was founded by St. Thomas the Apostle who preached to India in the year 52 AD. It is headed by H.H. Baselios
Marthoma Paulose II. His Grace Bishop Youssef, Bishop of the Coptic Orthodox Southern Diocese of the United States, recently went on a Mission Trip and met with the Pope and other clergies, which shows the love between the two churches

Each of these Oriental Churches is Orthodox and accept the Councils of Nicea, Constantinople, and Ephesus. They each have the same faith. This is different than the Mar Thoma church. The Malankara church is known as an Orthodox Church while Mar Thoma is not in communion with the other Orthodox Churches listed above.

Each Oriental Orthodox Church holds the same faith in these areas, just to name a few, and therefore are in communion with each other.

The Orthodox Creed
The Divinity of Christ
The Holy Sacraments
Soteriology
Christology

More information about the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church can be found directly from Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church Website.

Video of H.G. Bishop Youssef Mission Experience in 2016 with HE Metropolitan Gabriel Mar Gregorios


Aim of christian missionary in India I am Indian and a Hindu by religion.

I have few doubts about intentions of  christian missionary that happen in india funded by west.I have no intentions to hurt any religion but to get alternate opinion from christians  about messages given by groups in India who are Hindu conservatives.

.

A book by the group argues that the purpose of christian missionary is to create a fault-line in indian backward caste like dalits and which may finally cause harm to national integrity leading to national disintegration for economic  benefits of corporations.

.

My question is

As a christians , What in your opinion is objective of west to fund missionary in India?
Do christians in west really have such big conspiracy plans as they claim ?Like funding NGO to stop Nuclear plant development in india,etc?

Christians go to missions inspired and commanded by the book of Matthew. Precisely:

  And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me
  in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
  baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
  Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have
  commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the
  world. Amen.

  (Matthew 28:18-20, KJV)

A true missionary is formed by 3 components: Himself, the one who is sent to missions. A prayer team that prays for him and a supporter team, that supports the missionary financially.

Real missionaries go to other countries to preach and share the gospel with people that never had the chance to hear about it or where the gospel is something forbidden. They aren't influenced by large western corporations or rich people in order to cause damage in the countries they go to.

I can't really tell you whether there are like fake missionaries with these intentions, but for sure those aren't the plans neither the objective of the christian world. Jesus commanded christians to go to other countries to share what he taught in earth and that is what true christians do.


What, according to Jesus, is the primary purpose and objective of sending the Holy Spirit at Pentecost? After the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost and filled all those gathered together in that upper room in Jerusalem (Acts 1: 13-14), they were enabled to go forth and speak boldly about Jesus of Nazareth and how God raised him from the dead.  They spoke in tongues and performed miraculous healings (Acts chapter 2).
Is the primary objective of the Holy Spirit to imbue believers with the miraculous gifts of speaking in tongues, or of healing, or of prophecy?  Is the manifestation of those gifts of the Spirit in the believer proof that they are somehow superior to those who have never experienced such miraculous gifts?
What, according to Jesus, is the primary purpose and objective of sending the Holy Spirit at Pentecost?
EDIT for clarity: I'm looking for the words of Jesus, as found in the New Testament, which relate specifically to the purpose of sending the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

The very words of Jesus on that matter are clear and are repeated below:

John 15:26-27: “When the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you
from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, he
shall testify of me. And you also shall bear witness, because you have
been with me from the beginning”.
John 16:8-14: “And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin,
and of righteousness, and of judgment; of sin, because they believe
not on me; of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and you see me
no more; of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged...
when he, the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all the
truth, for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear
shall he speak, and he will show you things to come.  He shall glory
me; for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you.  All
things that the Father hath are mine.  Therefore said I, that he shall
take of mine, and shall show it unto you.”

The primary, foremost role of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost was NOT to imbue believers with miraculous gifts of a more spectacular nature than 'mundane' gifts of hospitality, administration etc., as if that would prove that those with spectacular gifts were somehow superior to those with 'mundane' gifts.  The words of Jesus show that the Holy Spirit does not speak of Himself - he points to, and glorifies, Christ.  Therefore, when the disciples at Pentecost found they could speak in other languages, they used that amazing gift to point thousands to the resurrected Christ. They preached Christ crucified and risen. They did not talk about themselves, but witnessed (testified to) having seen the resurrected Christ, and explaining how the prophecies about Messiah were fulfilled in Christ.
An illustration might be helpful. When thousands go to a sporting event in a huge outdoor stadium at night, and the flood-lights suddenly come on, does anybody turn around and admire the flood-lights?  Of course not!  The illumination is to enable them to see what is happening before their eyes.  So at Pentecost.  In that dark night of sin, when thousands gathered at Jerusalem to celebrate, the Holy Spirit suddenly flooded the city with the light of the gospel of Christ, so that all eyes were turned - not on the Holy Spirit - but on the disciples’ preaching, which was inspired by His power, for they could speak in other languages to reach those from other countries. They stood up and preached Christ crucified and risen in glory, and how the people could be delivered from their sin! They pointed to Christ, not to themselves or how wonderful their linguistic gifts were! All attention was drawn to the risen Christ.
Today, there are some who seem obsessed with having "the spirit", including power of spiritual gifts. But if any such ones promote self as exhibiting "the spirit", they cannot be denying self and pointing others to Christ. They have not learned the vital lesson of the Spirit bestowed at Pentecost - to work through saved believers to explain the gospel of Christ to others, so that those others might then be saved and experience the convicting power of the Holy Spirit, realising their sin and the need to repent and put all their faith in the risen Christ.


How do Protestants in general respond to these points concerning them? I haven't had much experience interacting with Catholics, but I have had a lot of interactions with the Orthodox and have been exposed to many of their writings and teachings. Whenever I would talk to them about what they think about the Protestants, these three main points would always stand out:

Protestants are not on the line of Apostolic succession;
Protestants don't recognize the sacraments as the ways specially ordained by God for conveying the Holy Spirit;
(A kind of summary to the first two points) although only God knows whether or not the Protestants are saved or have the Holy Spirit, it must be considered as the fact that the Protestants are spiritually in the way more disadvantageous position than the Orthodox Church.

I am sure Protestants are familiar with this kind of thinking of the Orthodox Christians regarding Protestantism. Is it possible to describe in general what Protestants usually say in response to that?

EDIT:

By "Protestants" I mean here those Christians who don't belong to the Oriental Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Eastern Orthodoxy, yet still pray to Jesus in their prayers (that is, they address Jesus by His name – not just say "I am praying in the name of Jesus" in the end of the prayer), or at least don't consider this practice to be wrong.

Preface, this is a Protestant response. I'm not arguing the validity of it, or any claims here, just answering the question.

the short Protestant response would be "Meh".

A general Protestant response to each point would be:

1) Where in Scripture does it say there would be any such thing as  Apostolic succession? The New Testament speaks of several Churches, planted by various Apostles. Not one central Church descended from Peter.  The idea of Apostolic succession is an invention of Churches added on after-the-fact.

2) That's right, too. Show me in  Scripture, not in some Church's teaching where these man-made ordinances are meant for that purpose? I seem to remember the indwelling if the Holy Spirit in Acts as being in response to faith and repentance, not to a ritual.

3) Since the first two questions are based on arguably false assumptions, the conclusion in the third is equally questionable.

If you expand this to include the LDS the answer is very different.  They believe the Apostolic line was broken, and was restored with Joseph Smith, so the Catholics and Orthodox recognize an invalid Apostolic line. And they'd say the Catholics and Orthodox hve the ordinances wrong, and are missing the critical Temple Ordinances.


Justification of perpetual virginity of Mother Mary How do Catholics justify St. Joseph not being able to consummate his marriage with his wife?

It would seem as though the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity is at odds with Catholic teaching about the purpose of marriage and holding the Holy Family up as the model for spouses would produce very few children, yet Catholics often produce very many children.

So why was St. Joseph's marriage destined to be devoid of marital intimacy?

I am not a Catholic so I guess I cannot give you the best answer, but here's my answer from an Eastern Orthodox viewpoint, which might be quite different from the Catholic one (or not?):

The ultimate purpose of marriage is actually the salvation of the bride and groom together. Bearing children is not a purpose in itself, but a consequence. Having children is encouraged but not 'mandatory'. Not bearing children was seen as a damnation in the Old Testament, but nowadays Orthodox fathers teach that it is fine if married couples choose to live together, but in chastity. See the works of Romanian Orthodox Fr. Arsenie Papacioc.


According to the Westminster Confession, what is the Biblical basis for the belief that the guilt of Adam and Eve was imputed to all mankind? As a recent answer observes, the Westminster Confession of Faith explains:

Our first parents, being seduced by the subtilty and temptation of Satan, sinned, in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin, God was pleased, according to His wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to His own glory.
II. By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body.
III. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed; and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation.*

What Biblical basis does the Westminster Confession imply or state supports the statement, "the guilt of this sin was imputed"?  If the Confession itself makes no such support, are there authoritative commentaries on the Confession (and only on the Confession) that provide such basis, and, if so, what is claimed?
Please don't answer the more general question, "What is the Biblical basis for the belief that the guilt of Adam and Eve was imputed to all mankind?"  That is not what is being asked here.  (Thank you.)

* VI.1-3

The closest things we have to an "authoritative" commentary on the Westminster Confession are the two catechisms that were published alongside it.1  Both the Confession and those catechisms have attached to them "scripture proofs" that were appended somewhat hastily after the original writing of the documents, and which are sometimes criticized as being incomplete and/or too simple.
But these are the best we have available with which to answer your question.  On the clause "They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed," the Confession lists the following passages as proofs: Genesis 1:27–28; Genesis 2:16–17; Acts 17:26; Romans 5:12, 15–19; and 1 Corinthians 15:21–22, 45, 49.  Of these, only the Romans and Corinthians passages are relevant to the second half of the phrase.  In the Confession, they read:

Romans 5
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. 15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. 17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) 18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
1 Corinthians 15
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

The verses in italics above (Romans 5:12, 19) are cited in answer 25 of the Larger Catechism, the one that most closely deals with this subject.

Some denominations do have commentaries on the Confession that they regard as authoritative; the RPCNA is one such example.  But the broader body of Reformed theology does not hold that any specific commentator's viewpoint is authoritative, though some are clearly more respected than others.  Commonly cited commentaries include Robert Shaw's (1845) and A. A. Hodge's (1869).


What non-Catholic Christian groups existed in Western Europe during the Middle Ages? Between the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the Reformation, were there any Christian groups outside the Roman Catholic Church? Who were they?

Taking your defined period for the Middle Ages—starting at the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 CE and ending with the 95 Theses in 1517 (which began the Protestant Reformation)—a number of minor Christian groups that were considered heretical, and thus outside the communion of the Catholic Church, popped up.

Given the definition of Catholicism, anyone who does not accept the entire Dogmata of the Church would not be in communion with it. It would therefore be impossible to enumerate every single person or minor group in a 1,000 year time span who may or may not have been in communion with the Church during that time period. However, it should be noted that the Church, from time to time, did address these heresies in the form of Synods, Ecumenical Councils, Papal Bulls, Encyclicals, and so forth.

Among the points of contention in the Middle Ages were the following:

The Investiture Controversy, where Kings and Queens were creating their own bishops and priests (a power reserved only to the Pope), addressed in the First Council of Lateran
The Antipope Anceletus II, pretender to the Papacy; addressed in the Second Council of Lateran
Catharism (also known as the Albigensian Heresy), a gnostic sect in France, addressed in the Third Council of Lateran
Waldensianism, which practiced something similar to sola scriptura prior to the Reformation, also addressed in the Third Council of Lateran
The Knights Templar, which were found to be a heretical order after the Crusades, and disbanded by the Council of Vienne

Those aside, there were two major events, or schisms:

The Great Schism of 1054: Brought on by a number of issues, the Eastern Eurpean Churches, centered around Constantinople (now the Orthodox Church, or the Eastern Orthodox Church), fell out of communion with the Western European Churches (now called the Roman Catholic Church).
The Western Schism (1378–1417): Due to a political issue with most of the major powers in Western Europe, three Papacies, all laying claim to the Church, arose: one out of Rome (backed by the Holy Roman Empire), another out of Avignon (backed by France), and a for a short third out of Pisa (backed by a small number of cardinals and bishops).

It's important to note that, like the Protestant Reformation that would come a few hundred years later, in both cases, all sides laid claim to Catholicity and considered themselves Catholic due to the First Council of Constantinople, which established there is only one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.


How does the New Testament define a Christian and a non-Christian, a brother in Christ and not a brother in Christ? How does the New Testament define a brother in Christ? According to the New Testament, what makes a human a brother in Christ? And also, according to the New Testament, which people are definitely not Christians, definitely not brothers in Christ?

I would want to have a set of key critical conditions-prerequisites (elicited from the New Testament) that would be necessary conditions for a person to be considered a Christian or a brother in Christ (I mean, if a person lacks at least one of those conditions, he is definitely not a Christian and definitely not a brother in Christ)

(I am not requesting here others' personal views. I really want to know how this very important matter is presented in the New Testament.
This matter is in fact a fundamental matter pertaining to Christian faith. It's not like "Is smoking cigarettes good or bad according to the New Testament?" While smoking may not be an important issue in Christianity, the matter that I am concerned about here definitely is)

Nowhere in the New Testanment is there a clear, condensed definition of a Christian or a Brother in Christ. The definition is written throughout the new testament. But there are a few things which are stated that make it fairly clear. A Christian can be defined as someone who:

Accepts Jesus Christ as the son of God and their Lord and Savior.
Accepts and follows the Bible, as it's the infallible Word of God.
Has faith and trusts God with all his heart.
Loves the Lord.
Bears fruit (produces positive results)


Is the Pope allowed to publish books after resignation? I've heard that after popes die (at least after Bl. John Paul II died) all their unpublished works and letters are burnt and I heard on the radio this morning that Pope Benedict XVI is pretty much going in to hiding, not just as a former head of state, but also to not influence in any way the new Pope.

So, we were expecting an encyclical on Faith for the year of Faith 2013, and if it doesn't get published in the next two and a half weeks will it be destroyed or can it (if it even exists) be published "posthumously"?

The ex-pope can't publish anything as a pope - his seal is destroyed and he has no longer the right to use his papal name in this way. Documents he didn't manage to publish won't be destroyed, but are open to use by his successor, as the site linked in Svidgen's comment states.

No one can forbid the ex-pope to publish books under his civic name, though it's a tradition for an ex-pope to refrain from anything that might have "political" consequences. I personally (with no qualification, I just guess) expect Joseph Ratzinger to publish some of his yet unpublished works (otherwise, someone would publish them posthumously) - I guess he has enough unpublished (or unfinished) materials from his academic times.


What do Evangelical Protestants say about sanctification? What do Evangelical Protestant confessions and/or statements of faith say about sanctification (if anything). If they say nothing, that's helpful to know too. There is no need to be exhaustive. Just pick a representative statement that fairly represents current Evangelical thinking.

Please note that I'm asking about sanctification, the process of "perfecting the saints" Eph 4:12, not justification or salvation as Protestants typically use the term. Sanctification is the process of making a person better (have better behavior, make more holy).

If there's any one denomination finds itself consistently in accord with "broad evangelicalism," it's gotta be the Southern Baptist Convention. Certainly that's true on this issue; article 4 of the Baptist Faith and Message says:

In its broadest sense salvation includes regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification. [...] Sanctification is the experience, beginning in regeneration, by which the believer is set apart to God's purposes, and is enabled to progress toward moral and spiritual maturity through the presence and power of the Holy Spirit dwelling in him. Growth in grace should continue throughout the regenerate person's life.

Methodists/Wesleyans are also well-represented in the evangelical movement, and they would agree with what's quoted above, but they would add the concept of entire sanctification.
Lutherans too are well-represented in evangelicalism, and would probably sign on to the Baptist statement above. But they would emphasize strongly that justification and sanctification are separate and must be kept separate in preaching. Lutherans are big on what they call the law-gospel distinction, and the gospel of free/unmerited grace (the grace of imputed righteousness, resulting in justification) must not be mingled with the preaching of the law, which sanctifies the justified but condemns the unjust.
Then you've got Presbyterians (which is basically synonymous with reformed). Almost everything I said above about Lutherans applies to them as well, although they tend to approach the law-gospel distinction a little bit differently. Since I'm most familiar with them, and since they're perhaps the most confessionally verbose anyway, I'll quote two of their confessions, starting with the Westminster Confession of Faith (chapter 13). This pretty concisely defines the Protestant doctrine of sanctification. And if you don't read too much Presbyterian baggage into "effectual calling" in the first sentence, and if you discount the pieces that contradict Methodist "entire sanctification" teaching, it pretty well encapsulates a view of sanctification that any evangelical should be able to raise his glass to:

They, who are once effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart, and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ's death and resurrection, by His Word and Spirit dwelling in them: the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified; and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces, to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.
This sanctification is throughout, in the whole man; yet imperfect in this life, there abiding still some remnants of corruption in every part; whence arises a continual and irreconcilable war, the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.
In which war, although the remaining corruption, for a time, may much prevail; yet, through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part does overcome; and so, the saints grow in grace, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.

Now comes the Belgic Confession (article 24), which predates the Westminster Confession. It says much the same, but it mixes in some polemic specifically designed to parry Catholic attacks on the doctrine:

We believe that this true faith, produced in us by the hearing of God’s Word and by the work of the Holy Spirit, regenerates us and makes us new creatures, causing us to live a new life and freeing us from the slavery of sin. Therefore, far from making people cold toward living in a pious and holy way, this justifying faith, quite to the contrary, so works within them that apart from it they will never do a thing out of love for God but only out of love for themselves and fear of being condemned.
So then, it is impossible for this holy faith to be unfruitful in a human being, seeing that we do not speak of an empty faith but of what Scripture calls “faith working through love,” which moves people to do by themselves the works that God has commanded in the Word. These works, proceeding from the good root of faith, are good and acceptable to God, since they are all sanctified by God’s grace. Yet they do not count toward our justification— for by faith in Christ we are justified, even before we do good works. Otherwise they could not be good, any more than the fruit of a tree could be good if the tree is not good in the first place.
So then, we do good works, but not for merit— for what would we merit? Rather, we are indebted to God for the good works we do, and not God to us, since God “is at work in [us], enabling [us] both to will and to work for his good pleasure” — thus keeping in mind what is written: “When you have done all that you were ordered to do, say, ‘We are worthless slaves; we have done only what we ought to have done.’“ Yet we do not wish to deny that God rewards good works— but it is by grace that God crowns these gifts.
Moreover, although we do good works we do not base our salvation on them; for we cannot do any work that is not defiled by our flesh and also worthy of punishment. And even if we could point to one, memory of a single sin is enough for God to reject that work. So we would always be in doubt, tossed back and forth without any certainty, and our poor consciences would be tormented constantly if they did not rest on the merit of the suffering and death of our Savior.

From each of these, we could synthesize a statement on sanctification that most or all evangelicals would agree with:

We are able to be justified by virtue of Christ's death and resurrection. The justifying, unmerited grace of God frees us from selfish motives for seeking holiness. Sanctification is gradual, aided by the work of the Holy Spirit on our hearts. It comes entirely after we have already been justified.

Though justification and sanctification are separate, it's important to remember that the same faith that justifies also sanctifies. John Piper, a reformed Baptist, wrote a book with that premise with the aim of aiding Christians in their sanctification and in their joy. It's called Future Grace, and it's considered a modern classic.
For more comparison and contrast between the various Protestant views of sanctification, you might want to check out two books on five views of sanctification. Both of them document reformed, Wesleyan, and Pentecostal views. The former book adds Keswick and "Augustinian-Dispensational," and the latter adds Lutheran and contemplative. (Keswick and Pentecostal theology both are closely related to Wesleyanism.)


Mental Illness vs. Demon Possession Mental illness is a fairly recent idea (in terms of human history).  As far as I know, the concept did not exist at all at the time the Bible was written.
I have heard some Christians speculate that some of the instances of demon possession recorded in the Bible may have been cases of schizophrenia or other mental illnesses. For example (many others exist):
Matthew 8:16-17:

16 And when even was come, they brought unto him many possessed with demons: and he cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all that were sick:
17 that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through Isaiah the prophet, saying: Himself took our infirmities, and bare our diseases.

Is it possible that some/all "demon possessions" in the Bible were simply cases of curing mental illnesses?  If the answer is "some," can we know the difference, and if so how?

I think there are four ways one can look at this.
Medical perspective
There are no well-documented cases of demon possession today among vast numbers of illnesses; various mental health problems have been tracked down often to a physical cause (even if we don't understand all the details of how the flaws work).  (See Wikipedia articles on epilepsy, schizophrenia, and so on.)
Historical accounts of people acting weirdly are generally consistent with the illnesses diagnosed (and treated, to some extent) today.  Since there is no evidence for demon possession, and a quite satisfactory alternative hypothesis (allowing for some exaggerations during telling), we should conclude that there never was any demon possession; that the Bible mentions possession is just a historical artifact of how mental illness symptoms were viewed at the time of the New Testament (note that the Old Testament is curiously free of cases of demonic possession).
Orthodox perspective
The Bible says there were demons, for example in Matthew 8:28-29:

Jesus Heals Two Men with Demons
28And when he came to the other side, to the country of the Gadarenes, two demon-possessed men met him, coming out of the tombs, so fierce that no one could pass that way. 29And behold, they cried out, "What have you to do with us, O Son of God? Have you come here to torment us before the time?"

So there were certainly demons then.  No one group can lay completely exclusive undisputed claim to the title "Orthodox", but that this was the historical view seems reasonably clear just from reading the Gospels.  Modern groups that take the title Orthodox also tend to take this view: there are also demons now, even if they're more discreet than they used to be.  Nonetheless, the demons still affect us and need to be battled, and they still possess people (and can be exorcised).
Unification perspective
Demonic possession and mental illnesses are two different ways to look at the same thing.  When we say someone is possessed by jealousy, we don't mean that there is an evil spirit called Jealousy that is taking control of our actions.  Instead, we mean that they are in a particular mood, one which induces them to do things that they might sorely regret were they in a calmer state of mind.
In this view, "demonic possession" is a spiritual perspective on mental illness: mental illness is a flaw ultimately enabled by evil, and so without the perspective of modern medicine, it is entirely reasonable to call states of mental dysfunction "demonic possession" (in the possessed by jealousy sense).
Diversification perspective
There are some mental illnesses and some demon possessions, and if something was called a "demon possession" in the New Testament but sounds like a mental illness, it was probably a mental illness.  (This view blends into the Orthodox view, depending on whether any Biblical accounts of possession can be attributed to non-demonic mental illness instead.  Many Orthodox churches recognize mental illness as a phenomenon.  The Catholic Church in particular clearly recognizes mental illness as well as demonic possession, and I do not know whether doctrine indicates that some apparent cases of demonic possession should be understood as mental illness instead.)
Conclusion
Given a perspective, one can answer whether some/all cases of demon possession were actually mental illness.  In the first and third views, they all were; in the fourth, some were, but picking out which was which is hard to do reliably (would require scriptural support, of which there is none that I am aware).  In the second, no, demon possession was really the problem, just like it says.


What are the Main Characteristics of Mormon Prophets? I ask this question, as a Catholic, because Mormonism is hierarchical in structure and has a lot of similarities with Catholicism, although seemingly they are superficial as in being surface impressions but I digress.

This question and the answers will help shed light on a lot of misunderstandings, I think. Most of us are familiar with the Catholic Pope (and these days he is quite popular) but the Mormon leader not so well known which is the Prophet.

The Specific Elements I Expect in the Answers:

On Church Management in General

If the Prophet claims the Petrine Seat(by succession or?). The Petrine Seat is the leadership position given first to St. Peter and has traditionally been passed down from generation to generation by succession. The one who holds it essentially claims to be the main representative of Christ on Earth, the visible unifier of the entire flock(St. Luke 22:31-32 and St. John 21:15-17).
If the Prophet has a College of Bishops/"Highest Teachers"  in union with the Prophet which is supposed to aid him in teaching the Church as a whole.
If the Prophet has jurisdiction as universal pastors of all churches. Meaning that he can operate in all churches as if he were the head of those individual churches, no need to appeal to the locals.
If the Prophet is immune from being dethroned from the office of Prophet unless it is his own decision to step down.(Or can't he step down at all?)
If Mormons are encouraged to listen to the Prophet above any other figure in the hierarchy in case of disagreement between the leader and others on none dogmatic issues, as well as disagreements outside of the Church on politics for example.

On Infallibility

If the Prophet can claim to speak infallibly to declare new dogma or end theological discussions infallibly under certain conditions(if so what are they?) by virtue of his office in the eyes of God.
If the Prophet in union with the College can claim to speak infallibly to declare new dogma.

Since this only deals with the Mormon side, as opposed to both the Catholic and the Mormon side in my previous question, I would like official and authoritative quotes for each element. One per element is enough, but if you do more it will be esteemed more exhaustive and that's a good thing.

(1) Does the LDS Prophet claim the Petrine Seat?

The simple answer to this quesion is "yes," but that's not quite right.  The LDS Church recognizes Peter as an apostle of Jesus Christ and as head of the primitive church by virtue of receiving the keys of the sealing authority (Matt 16:19).

However, we believe that the primitive church came to an end in a general apostasy.  Jesus taught, "there needs be a falling away first," (2 Thes 2:3) and that falling away occured soon after the deaths of the apostles.

From an article "Simeon Peter" in the Feb. 1975 LDS publication Ensign we read:

  This commission [receiving the sealing keys] did not create the first pope, for Peter never called himself bishop of Rome. ... Peter’s successors were not Bible scholars, ministers, evangelists, bishops of any kind, or even general councils of the church. Peter was an apostle raised to presidency and a prophet and revelator for the church. No one less can perpetuate his office in any Christian organization.

So, we believe the primitive church (the church of the original apostles) came to an end and therefore there is no continuation of it.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a restitution or restoration of something lost (Acts 3:20-22).  Part of that restoration process must include (and did include) the keys to the sealing authority as were given to Peter, as well the keys of prophecy and revelation.

Therefore, yes, the LDS prophet claims the "Petrine Seat" from the perspective that he must be a prophet and head of the faith just as Peter was a prophet and head of the faith as were the prophets before him — by restoration following a prophecied general apostacy.

(2) Does the Prophet have a College of Bishops/"Highest Teachers" in union with the Prophet which is supposed to aide him in teaching the Church as a whole?

Again, the simple answer is "yes."  When you see official references to the Prophet, you will see him identified as "Prophet and President of...".  This is because there are two roles.  The Lord calls and sustains His prophet, but the apostles call and the membership sustains the president of the Church.  This distinction is important for a later question, too.

The Prophet and two counsellors form the First Presidency of the Church (D&C 107:22).  For a detailed description of how this happens, see my answer to this other question.
The Twelve Apostles are a quorum equal in authority to the First Presidency (D&C 107:23-24).  This quorum's purpose (beyond testifying of Jesus Christ) is to officiate and regulate the affairs of the Church under the direction of the First Presidency (D&C 107:33).
The Quorum of the Seventy are a quorum equal in authority to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (D&C 107:25-26).  This quorum's purpose is specifically missionary work (proselyting) (D&C 107:34).
Authority is only equal when the quorums are acting (in each quorum) unanimously (D&C 107:27-29).

These three quorums constitute the group in the LDS Church that has primary responsibility to aid the Prophet.  Further...

The First Presidency has authority to organize the Church as necessary (D&C 88:74-75; 117-120).  Over the decades presidencies have been formed to support our youth organizations, women's organization, children's organization, sunday school, and welfare efforts.  These presidencies, too, council with and aid the Prophet.
Additional information about these offices may be found on the LDS Church's website.

(3)  Does the Prophet have jurisdiction as universal pastor of all churches.

Yes.  Only the Prophet holds all the keys of authority in the Church and it is within his authority to reorganize any council or congregation within the Church.  (D&C 107:65-67; 132:7)

However...

The Prophet is not a dictator.  All things are done in the Church according to the Law of Common Consent (D&C 26:2 and see the question I posted about it).

The only example I can remember of Church members voting against a proposal from the First Presidency was when the Provo, UT Tabernacle burned down.  The building was destroyed and the First Presidency's initial decision was to demolish the remains and sell the land.  When this was presented to Church members in Provo, they refused the decision.  This led to President Monson's later announcement that the building would be rebuilt as a temple.

(4) Is the Prophet immune from being dethroned from the office of Prophet unless it is his own decision to step down (Or can't he step down at all)?

The call of Prophet is a lifetime call.  Certainly, he can refuse that call should he choose at any time (though none has).  Though we hold people to standards for advancement in the Church (such as minimum worthiness requirements to enter our Temples), no one is compelled to anything in the LDS Church.

However, the Lord has provided for His people should a day ever come that the President chooses iniquity.  Bishops are called as judges, and the presiding Bishopric has one judicial duty: to try the President of the Church.  This is discussed in D&C 107:73-84.  Specifically quoting from verse 84:

  Thus, none shall be exempted from the justice and the laws of God....

You'll note I shifted from "Prophet" to "President."  As I mentioned earlier, there are two roles.  The congregation of the Church can reject their president, but only the Lord can reject His prophet.
Technically this process can happen in either of two ways: either the president is tried by the Presiding Bishopric or the general membership vote to disapprove his call (Common Consent).  Given that today's membership is about 16 million, getting 8 million +1 to vote against is fairly unlikely.
If I remember correctly, no president other than Joseph Smith has been tried for his membership.  Joseph was tried three times — all during the Zion's Camp march — and was exonerated all three times.

(5) Are Mormons encouraged to listen to the Prophet above any other figure in the hierarchy?

Yes.  Frankly, this is an odd question.  It's like suggesting a U.S. citizen should listen to a senator above the President...  The last time any sizable group in the U.S. did that it led to our Civil War.

Nevertheless, remember what I said above about the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and the Quorum of the Seventy having to act unanimously to be equal in authority to the Quorum of the First Presidency.  Individual members may have their opinions, but the quorums do not act contrary to one another.

It should be remembered that the concept of command doesn't exist in the LDS Church.  No Bishop can command his ward, nor can the Prophet command the Church.  D&C 121:41-44 teaches that the Priesthood is to be used:

  by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; by kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile...

People are people and will upon occasion disagree, but by definition, if a disagreement cannot be politely resolved, something went very, very wrong.  Ours is not a church of command.

Therefore, yes, we invite people to hear the Prophet's voice and obey, but we're not looking for slaves, or robots, or people who follow blindly.  "...Men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will..." (D&C 58:26-29).

Like I said, kindof an odd question.  Let's assume (as I obviously believe) that our current Prophet is, indeed, a living prophet of the living Jesus Christ.  Why wouldn't you listen to him?  Curious....

It should be noted that the primary purpose of the Law of Common Consent is to help people come to Christ.  In rare occasions that's an expectation of clarification from the Prophet.  In most cases, it's the member who needs to pray, study, ponder, and then pray to receive the testimony of the Spirit themselves.  The LDS Church is not a democracy.  We cannot tell the Lord what to do.  The general membership does not have the right nor the authority to force, for example, social change upon the Church.  Dictating to the Lord is a fast way to earn His wrath.  the Lord's response to Habbakuk is a good example.

(6) If the Prophet can claim to speak infallibly...

The one and only person who is infallible is Jesus Christ.  This is why we have the Law of Common Consent, so that issues can be brought before the Church (and, ultimately, the Lord) and resolved.  We, as regular Church members, are invited to balance two teachings:

"Whether by my voice or the voice of my servant, it is the same" (D&C 1:38).  When the Prophet speaks the word of the Lord, we are expected to listen.
"Study it out in your mind..." (D&C 9:8-9).  We are expected to learn about and know the truth for ourselves.

Joseph Smith understood this basic balance when he taught that "a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such" (History of the Church, 5:265).  And how do we know when he is "acting as such"?  We study it, ponder it, review scripture, and then get on our knees and pray.

(7) Can the Prophet in union with the College claim to speak infallibly to declare new dogma?

"Infallible" is a big word.  We believe the only infallible person is Jesus Christ, therefore the answer is specifically "no."  This does not mean the doctrine isn't perfect and from the Lord.  It only recognizes that imperfect Man is, indeed, imperfect.  As I mentioned, this is why the Law of Common Consent exists.  However, when the Prophet of the Lord in union with the Quorum of the Twelve and Quorum of the Seventy stand together to declare new dogma... maybe you should listen, study, review scripture, and get on your knees and pray.

An example of this was the acceptance by the Church of D&C sections 137 and 138 as doctrine of the Church and Declarations #1 and #2.  In all these cases, the Prophet didn't simply declare and we listen.  The Church was invited to accept the additional scripture and changes in Church policy by vote in Solemn Assemblies.  It's a big deal.

As a contrasting example, consider the unaffiliated "FLDS" (Fundamentalist LDS) church run by Warren Jeffs.  He believes himself to be infallible, as does his congregation.  The mess they're in is a very good reflection of what happens when you believe a mere mortal is equal with God, which is what an infallible person must be.

The Priesthood is the authority to act in the name of God — but only at the level of God if the bearer is clean and purified of all sin (D&C 50:26-28).  And even then, we do not command.  The true followers of Christ pursuade through patience and long-suffering because there has ever only been one perfect person: Jesus Christ.


Scripture reference on quoting scripture in a hurtful manner I've heard a few times that there is some verse in the bible that instructs people to be hesitant to quote scripture when wanting to "help" those that are hurt, guilty of an offense, looking just to be heard, etc. Clearly, Job's friends are an example of why sometimes "helping" can be hurtful.... But is there explicit text that discourages quoting scripture or "righteously correcting" people when the time is inappropriate? [more explicit than Ecclesiastes 3, for example]

First, consider your own integrity and maturity and decide if the words you want to speak are ones you should listen to yourself. Matthew 7 says:

  “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay
  no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your
  brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time
  there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the
  plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the
  speck from your brother’s eye.

Second, check your attitude. The key phrase is "speaking the truth in love". Ephesians 4 says:

  As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of
  the calling you have received. 2 Be completely humble and gentle; be
  patient, bearing with one another in love. 3 Make every effort to keep
  the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. 4 There is one body
  and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were
  called; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of
  all, who is over all and through all and in all.

  7 But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it.
  8 This is why it says:

  “When he ascended on high,
      he took many captives
      and gave gifts to his people.”[b] 9 (What does “he ascended” mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions? 10 He
  who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the
  heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.) 11 So Christ himself
  gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and
  teachers, 12 to equip his people for works of service, so that the
  body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the
  faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature,
  attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

  14 Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the
  waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the
  cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming. 15
  Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every
  respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ. 16
  From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting
  ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its
  work.

Third, become wise and well-informed through careful study. 2 Peter 3 says:

  Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our
  dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16
  He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these
  matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand,
  which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other
  Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Fourth, decide based on your knowledge of the other person whether there is any chance that they will respond favorably, or if you are needlessly risking harm to yourself. Matthew 7:6 says:

  6 “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs.
  If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear
  you to pieces.

Fifth, do not despair of being helpful. James 5 says,

  19 My brothers and sisters, if one of you should wander from the truth
  and someone should bring that person back, 20 remember this: Whoever
  turns a sinner from the error of their way will save them from death
  and cover over a multitude of sins.

Update:

While not as focused as the OP's question demands, I did come across this Proverb:

  26:7 Like the useless legs of one who is lame is a proverb in the
  mouth of a fool.

  26:9 Like a thornbush in a drunkard’s hand is a proverb in the mouth
  of a fool.

If silence were required, that is probably a good description of someone who can't shut up.


Does the Catholic Church say which is the correct rendering in english of The Glory Be (The Doxology)? This is one rendering of The Glory Be:

  Glory be to the Father, and to the son, and to the Holy Spirit. As it
  was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end.
  Amen.

And this is another:

  Glory be to the Father, and to the son, and to the Holy Spirit. As it
  was in the beginning, is now, and will be forever. Amen.

Does the Catholic Church say which of these is the correct rendering in english of The Glory Be (The Doxology)? If none is, what is the correct rendering in english of The Glory Be (The Doxology) according to the Catholic Church?

This is what got me thinking, that the Mass in English has a New Translation.

An Official version is available On Line from the Vatican

This link takes you to the compendium of the catechism of the Catholic Church which is hosted at the Vatican's web page.  In Appendix A, Common Prayers, the Gloria Patri is rendered with Latin next to English.

English:

  Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning is now, and ever shall be world without end. Amen.

Latin

  Glória Patri et Fílio et Spirítui Sancto. Sicut erat in princípio, et nunc et semper et in sæ´cula sæculórum. Amen.

Given the source, it's about as official as one can ask for.

Note:

In this prayer's case, unlike the Hail Holy Queen, Te Deum, Magnificat, and Benedictus prayers, the Vatican did not break it into "UK English" and "US English" versions.  This indicates that they went to some trouble to render it to the best of their ability.
Given the 2011 changes to the Liturgy, in English, to get closer to literal translations from the Latin into the English, there may be a change in time (the RCC moves slowly, when it moves at all) to render that prayer more literally.  Since the date for the Compendium seems to be the year 2005, there may be an update coming.  Or not.