What is the Roman Catholic stance on levitation? There are many stories of certain saints levitating or even flying. Many include reports of some particular saint seen hovering a few feet above the ground as they were deep in prayer.

Does the Roman Catholic Church have an official position on this? Are some saints officially recognized as 'levitators' or are the stories dismissed?

Skip to the "however" toward the end to avoid a lot of build-up.

I'm not finding anything official, and my favorite source is coming up inconclusive, but leaning toward "It's either bogus or of the devil, not of God.".

A search for "Levitation" on the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia site returns exactly four results.

The first is an article called "Impostors", which recounts various, well, impostors.  Excerpt:

  More to our purpose are a number of feigned or deluded ecstaticas who
  often traded upon the popular credulity in countries like Spain that
  were ready to welcome the miraculous. Amongst the most famous of these
  was Magdalena de la Cruz (1487-1560), a Franciscan nun of Cordova, who
  for many years was honoured as a saint. She was believed to have the
  stigmata and to take no other food than the Holy Eucharist. The
  Blessed Sacrament was said to fly to her tongue from the hand of the
  priest who was giving Holy Communion, and it seemed at such moments
  that she was raised from the ground. The same miraculous levitation
  took place during her ecstasies at which time also she was radiant
  with supernatural light. So universal was the popular veneration, that
  ladies of the highest rank, when about to be confined, sent to her the
  cradles or garments prepared for the expected child, that she might
  bless them. This was done by the Empress Isabel, in 1527, before the
  birth of Philip II. On the other hand St. Ignatius Loyola had always
  regarded her with suspicion. Falling dangerously ill in 1543,
  Magdalena confessed to a long career of hypocrisy, ascribing most of
  the marvels to the action of demons by which she was possessed, but
  maintaining their reality. She was sentenced by the Inquisition, in an
  auto-da-fé at Cordova, in 1546, to perpetual imprisonment in a convent
  of her order, and there she is believed to have ended her days most
  piously amid marks of the sincerest repentance (see Görres, "Mystik",
  V, 168-174; Lea, "Chapters from Relig. Hist. of Spain", 330-335). A
  large number of similar cases have been discussed in considerable
  detail by Lea both in his "Chapters" just cited, and also in the
  fourth volume of his "History of the Inquisition of Spain", but Lea,
  though indefatigable as a compiler, is not to be relied on in the
  conclusions and inferences he draws.

Score:  Legitimate levitation:0, phony (or possibly of the devil):1

The second, "St. John of the Cross" doesn't actually mention levitation.

Score remains Legitimate levitation:0, phony (or possibly of the devil):1

The third:  "Spiritism"

I'll spare you the quote, but levitation is listed as one of the phenomena associated with Spiritism, which is seen as not of God, but of the opposite.

Score:  Legitimate levitation:0, phony (or possibly of the devil):2

The fourth, "St. Gerard Majella" also doesn't actually mention levitation.

Score remains Legitimate levitation:0, phony (or possibly of the devil):2

Other searches:  "Levitate" returns similar articles, plus a few Latin verses, but in these, the word "levitate" is translated to English as "light", "lightly" or "lightness" consistent with the normal translation.  Example, 2 Corinthians 1:17

However...

Some other sites that look less official to me suggest otherwise.  There are several seemingly legitimate cases reported, which are seen as genuine miracles, and seem relatively accepted.

Frustratingly, I cannot find an official statement at all.  The most plausible I've found to an official stance is in an un-cited, un-referenced answer that sounds entirely plausible and consistent with all the "noise" I've found.  It is CatholicCulture.org's article on Levitation.

  According to Benedict XIV, in order to verify genuine levitation it is
  first of all necessary to make a thorough investigation to eliminate
  any chance of fraud. Then he states that a well-authenticated
  levitation cannot be explained on merely natural grounds; that this
  phenomenon is not, however, beyond the power of angels or demons; and
  that with the saints it is a kind of anticipation of a prerogative of
  glorified bodies.

This same statement can be found on many sites, and appears to be commonly accepted as a valid assertion.


Was 30 the canonical age for Catholic priesthood in the 1700s? I understand that the current canonical age for Catholic ordination is 25 years. Was the minimum previously 30 years?

The documentation of a priest's ordination in 1775 shows that the diocese spent some time examining the age of the applicant. At issue was whether he, a "cleric of minor orders", was old enough to join "the Order of the Presbyter". A note up front on the document reads "older than 30 years". In letters, the applicant declared that he was 31 years of age, while one official noted that he appeared more like 24. In the end he was ordained. The example is from the historic archives of Durango, RGHC AHAD-120, p. 561.

The Council of Trent (1545-1563) wrote a decree Sacrificium et sacerdotium on the holy orders dealing with this question:

Nullus  in  posterum  ad  subdiaconatus  ordinem  ante  vigesimum  secundum  ad  diaconatus  ante  vigesimum  tertium  ad  presbyteratus  ante  vigesimum  quintum  aetatis  suae annum promoveatur.
Sciant tamen episcopi non singulos in ea aetate constitutos debere ad hos ordines assumi sed dignos dumtaxat et quorum probata vita senectus sit.
Regulares  quoque  nec  in  minori  aetate  nec  sine  diligenti  episcopi  examine  ordinentur; privilegiis quibuscumque quoad hoc penitus exclusis.
(Decretum super reformatione, canon XII)
No one shall for the future be promoted to the order of subdeaconship before the twenty-second year of age; to that of deaconship before his twenty-third year; to that of priesthood before his twenty-fifth year.
Nevertheless, bishops are to know, that not all who have attained to that age must needs be admitted to the aforesaid orders, but those only who are worthy, and whose commendable life is an old age.
Regulars likewise shall not be ordained under the above age, nor without a diligent examination by the bishop; all privileges whatsoever in this regard being completely set aside.
(Decree on reformation, chapter XII)

So the minimum age for ordination as a priest was set to 25 years. The diligent investigation of the age was prescribed in canones V and VII.
I do not know for sure, if there was a later papal decree raising the minimum age, but I do not see any reason for such a step. There could also be a local law setting a higher age.
So probably the minimum age for your case was 25. So the suspected age of 24 would have been a problem. Maybe the note "older than 30 years" refers to the declared or the investigated age.


Biblical basis for "We are the living law"? I found myself at a bewilderment when, yesterday during our Prayer/Bible study group, a member of the group started teaching us the concept of "We are the living law".

His reasoning/support behind this?

Christ died and fulfilled the Law, but it's not done away with.
We are appointed to die once, and when we accept Christ we experience that death and have "the righteous blood [of Christ] applied [to us]."

There were a few other points I can't recall at the moment, but I will edit the question if I remember.

My question is - are there any denominations that teach this doctrine? I found this particular teaching very uncomfortable, as the "head" if our group. I apologize if this question is unclear. If there are edits to be made, do please suggest them.

In short, I'm curious if there is a biblical basis for this teaching - and if so - if there are any other denominations that teach this.

Your nemesis(!) is at least partially right. Doctrinally, at least from an Evangelical perspective, he or she is spot on. The person's behavior, on the other hand, is far from Christ-like.

Paul is quite clear in Romans that the Law of God is a good thing (as Martha Stewart is wont to say--except she leaves out the words about God's Law):

  So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good (7:12).

He also is clear about the role God's Law is to play in the lives of believers.

  For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin. He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit
  (Romans 8:2-4, NASB, my italics)

Put differently, this time in Jeremiah's words,

  "The days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will plant the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the offspring of men and of animals. Just as I watched over them to uproot and tear down, and to overthrow, destroy and bring disaster, so I will watch over them to build and to plant," declares the LORD. "In those days people will no longer say, 'The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge.' Instead, everyone will die for his own sin; whoever eats sour grapes--his own teeth will be set on edge. "The time is coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them, " declares the LORD. "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people"
  (31:27-33 my italics)

And in Ezekiel's words,

  "For I will take you out of the nations; I will gather you from all the countries and bring you back into your own land. I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws"
  (36:26 ff., NIV, my italics)

In this Age of Grace in which we live, the Holy Spirit empowers us to fulfill the Law's just requirements. We are not to be antinomianists (i.e., people who consider themselves free from the Law of God, since we're "saved by Grace"), having the attitude, "Hey, the more I sin, the more gracious God will be!" To that statement, Paul would lend us his emphatic, "By no means!" or "God forbid!" (see Romans 6:1 ff.).

The point Paul and others make in this regard is this: While we cannot earn our salvation by fulfilling the Law of God--for then, our salvation would be of works and not of faith, we have been freed from the curse attached to our disobedience to the Law.

  "Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.
  (Ezekiel 18:4)

We have been freed from fulfilling the just requirements of the Law for our salvation. Jesus made this freedom possible through his shed blood. On the other hand, we have not been freed from fulfilling the just requirements of the Law in the power of the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us once we are regenerated. The former has to do with salvation. The latter has to do with sanctification.

In other words, we cannot be saved by obeying the Law, because whoever has committed one sin (or a million sins)--and we all have--"shall die." We can, however, prove to ourselves and others that we are indeed saved by fulfilling the Law's just demands through our way of life as followers of Jesus Christ. For Christ has set us free for this very purpose, since He fulfilled every single one of the Law's just requirements as the sinless and spotless Lamb of God. That is why he could be the perfect sacrifice for sin.

In conclusion, your "friend" is correct, doctrinally. In his obligation to live a life of love, he is sadly lacking. Go to him or her in private, in keeping with Matthew 5:23-24 and Matthew 18:15-18. Best wishes to you!


Must a Christian accept the Bible to be infallible and/or inerrant? Related question: What is the difference between "infallible" and "inerrant"?

I have heard lists of requirements to be considered Christian; among those, I find these the most prevalent:

Belief in the Trinity- very common
Belief in the Apostolic Creed- pretty universal
Belief in the infallibility/inerrancy of the Bible

Does this third point belong as an essential condition to be considered Christian?

Note:

In order to fit the format of this site, I expect answers to be well-defended and present both sides, articulating the points that make the most sense to a Christian point of view. I will pick the one that I find the most defensible, regardless of my personal opinion.

For example, if major religions denounce the view that the Bible may be imperfect as heresy, then this would be a very important note to make. I mostly grew up in a single Church, so I don't know the finer points of many other religions, only broad generalizations.

[Note: this answer was posted *before* the question was edited and refers to two questions that were in the original, paraphrased here: (1) what does the Bible itself say on the subject and (2) must someone accept that the Bible is inerrant and infallible in order to be considered a Christian]

Some people take the warning at the end of Revelation to apply to the whole Bible, and interpret it as saying "this is complete and correct" - in other words, inerrant.

Revelation 22:18-19 (NIV):

  I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If
  anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues
  described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book
  of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life
  and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

Regarding your second question, people define "Christian" in many different ways. Often that does include a requirement to accept the Bible or at the very least to acknowledge its authority - in fact I think that's probably true in the majority of cases, but I'm not aware of any firm statistics to back that up.

My own view is that it's healthy for everyone to question their own beliefs from time to time and certainly Christians with questions and queries about Biblical content are no less Christians. Christianity is first and foremost about a relationship with God, and while an understanding and acceptance of scripture is very important it is secondary to that relationship.


Did God REALLY want to destroy the people of Israel? When Moses led the people of Israel through the desert, there were two interesting occasions when God wanted to destroy the people of Israel and start over. (There may be more occasions that I don't know of.)
The first one is when Moses went up on mount Sinai and stayed there for 40 days and 40 nights. During that time, the people of Israel grew weary and made themselves a golden calf to worship, since they believed God had deserted them. This made God very angry (and would have made me very angry too) and he told Moses this:

“I have seen these people,” the LORD said to Moses, “and they are a stiff-necked people. Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation.” (Exodus 32:9-10, NIV)

In verses 11-14, Moses replies:

But Moses sought the favor of the LORD his God. “LORD,” he said, “why should your anger burn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand? Why should the Egyptians say, ‘It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth’? Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people. Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self: ‘I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever.’” Then the LORD relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.

Some time later, some of the Levites rose up against Moses and were then destroyed by God. The day after, this happened:

The next day the whole Israelite community grumbled against Moses and Aaron. “You have killed the LORD’s people,” they said.
But when the assembly gathered in opposition to Moses and Aaron and turned toward the tent of meeting, suddenly the cloud covered it and the glory of the LORD appeared. Then Moses and Aaron went to the front of the tent of meeting, and the LORD said to Moses, “Get away from this assembly so I can put an end to them at once.” And they fell facedown.
Then Moses said to Aaron, “Take your censer and put incense in it, along with burning coals from the altar, and hurry to the assembly to make atonement for them. Wrath has come out from the LORD; the plague has started.” So Aaron did as Moses said, and ran into the midst of the assembly. The plague had already started among the people, but Aaron offered the incense and made atonement for them. He stood between the living and the dead, and the plague stopped. But 14,700 people died from the plague, in addition to those who had died because of Korah. Then Aaron returned to Moses at the entrance to the tent of meeting, for the plague had stopped. (Numbers 16:41-45, NIV)

So, the question is: Did God REALLY want to destroy the people of Israel? I certainly would, but would God really? If Moses had said: "Okay, go ahead", would God have done it? Moses reminded God of the promise he gave to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. I know that the sum of the Bible is true, thus it is important to understand a passage in its context and the Bible in its entirety. I have a little problem of getting God's unlimited love and grace to sum up with these two places where he wants to destroy the people of Israel.

If Moses had said: "Okay, go ahead", would God have done it?

You can take a look at the narrative of Abraham and Sodom (Genesis 18:16-33) as an example of this opposite case.  Abraham, of course, doesn't say "Okay, go ahead and destroy Sodom"—but he doesn't ask for mercy either.  His intercession is based on justice instead: it would be unjust, he argues, to destroy righteous people along with wicked people.  He talks God down to the idea of saving an entire city full of unrighteous men, women, and children for the sake of ten hypothetical righteous ones—but can we doubt that if Abraham had been bold enough to ask for mercy instead, God would have spared them altogether?  (Moses, who surely knew the story of Sodom—if he didn't write it himself—knew better than to base his pleas for mercy on the righteousness of the Israelites.  Likewise, we ourselves cannot be saved on our own merits.)

  So, the question is: Did God REALLY want to destroy the people of Israel? I certainly would, but would God really?  [...] I have a little problem of getting God's unlimited love and grace to sum up with these two places where he wants to destroy the people of Israel.

It does look bad—to understate it—to see the one we recognize as a God of love and grace calling for genocide.  But the real issue is an even bigger one: we as humans "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23), and "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23).  We all face judgment, not just the Israelites in the wilderness—they just happened to be faced with receiving it early.

Did God really want to destroy the people of Israel?  Well, does God really want to destroy any of us?  The answer to that is surely in the negative.   In 2 Peter 3:9 we read that God is "not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance".  We're told that God says "I desire mercy, not sacrifice" (Hosea 6:6, Matthew 9:13).  We're told that God loves the world—so much so "that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16)  If God must destroy anyone, it is surely with regret, not with relish.


How did the Born Again teaching be associated with one first believing in Jesus Christ? Many Protestant Christians believe that you become born again as soon as you believe on Jesus Christ. Many believe that this teaching is clear in the opening verses of John chapter 3. How did this teaching get developed? Who started it?

I'm not asking whether any church believes that a person becomes born again by believing in Jesus Christ. I want to know how the idea developed that born again was something that happened at one's first faith in Jesus, and not, for instance, at a later time in the spiritual journey.

I'm acutely aware that I've accepted this teaching without question, probably as a result of group-think and not from personal theological study. Jesus doesn't plainly say that born again happens when you first believe on Him, so where did that teaching come from?

An acceptable answer would be to say who developed the interpretation that Jesus' usage of born again takes place at the time when one first received Christ. Another acceptable answer would be to trace the development of the idea.

A common theme in the New Testament is rebirth in salvation through Christ. So the idea of being "born again" isn't all that cryptic. To specifically address your question of why we equate a new spiritual birth with the point of salvation, I'll direct you to a few scriptures.

First, we must clarify what the point of salvation actually is:

Romans 10:9-10

  because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe
  in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
  For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth
  one confesses and is saved.

So if a confession of faith and a belief in the Christ is what brings salvation, then we can now compare that language to other scriptures that speak of being born again.

John 1:12-13 ESV

  But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the
  right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of
  the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Here we see a belief in the name of Jesus (point of salvation) being coupled with the idea of being born of God. We see this again in 1 John:

1 John 5:1 ESV

  Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God,
  and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him.

...and again in verses 4 and 5...

1 John 5:4-5 ESV

  For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. And this is
  the victory that has overcome the world—our faith. Who is it that
  overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus is the Son
  of God?

Again we see a tight coupling of two ideas: belief in Jesus and being "born" again into a spiritual family.

This same idea of "new life" is presented in several different ways throughout the New Testament. Paul tells us we are a new creation at the point of salvation:

2 Corinthians 5:17 ESV

  Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has
  passed away; behold, the new has come.

Again we see the idea of a "rebirth" -- since we are "in Christ" the moment we confess and believe, then it is at the moment of our salvation that we become a new spiritual creation.

Something else we need to consider is that some scripture points to being "born again" as the starting point, with pursuit of holiness coming as a result of our initial rebirth. This seems to contradict the idea that being born again is something that comes later in one's "spiritual journey," as you put it. For example:

1 Peter 1:22-23 ESV

  Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a
  sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart,
  since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of
  imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God;

Peter calls us to love one another earnestly as a result of being born again. It seems clear from this passage that the rebirth was the starting point, and Peter is referring to this past event as the reason for why we should want to pursue love in this way.

As I mentioned earlier, a common theme in the New Testamanet is one of new life in Christ, and it seems clear that the idea of being born again fits with this new life we find in salvation through Christ. Sometimes this is referred to as being born of God or passing from death to life (John 5:24), but the message is quite clear that a life without Christ leads to death, and a life with Christ leads to a new life. Jesus even said it himself a few verses later in his conversation with Nicodemus:

John 3:14-16 ESV

  And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son
  of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal
  life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that
  whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

It seems unlikely that Jesus would so strongly emphasize the belief in the Christ as the initial point of salvation right after telling Nicodemus that somewhere along your "spiritual journey" you have to have this other event of being "born again" to see the kingdom of God. It doesn't make sense unless being born again is the actual point of salvation.


What is the history behind the tradition of making the sign of the cross? Catholics make the sign of the cross by touching the forehead then the chest then lest side then the right then bringing two hands together.

My question What is the history behind the tradition of making the sign of the cross? Why, when, and how did this tradition start?

What is the history behind the tradition of making the sign of the cross?

Throughout the history of the Catholic Church, there have been various ways to make the sign of the cross. Probably one of the best sources would be the Catholic Encyclopedia.

  Sign of the Cross

  A term applied to various manual acts, liturgical or devotional in character, which have this at least in common: that by the gesture of tracing two lines intersecting at right angles they indicate symbolically the figure of Christ's cross.

  Most commonly and properly the words "sign of the cross" are used of the large cross traced from forehead to breast and from shoulder to shoulder, such as Catholics are taught to make upon themselves when they begin their prayers, and such also as the priest makes at the foot of the altar when he commences Mass with the words: "In nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti". (At the beginning of Mass the celebrant makes the sign of the cross by placing his left hand extended under his breast; then raising his right to his forehead, which he touches with the extremities of his fingers, he says: In nomine Patris; then, touching his breast with the same hand, he says: et Filii; touching his left and right shoulders, he says; et Spiritus Sancti; and as he joins his hands again adds: Amen.) The same sign recurs frequently during Mass, e.g. at the words "Adjutorium nostrum in nomine Domini", at the "Indulgentiam" after the Confiteor, etc., as also in the Divine Office, for example at the invocation "Deus in adjutorium nostrum intende", at the beginning of the "Magnificat", the "Benedictus", the "Nunc Dimittis", and on many other occasions.

  Another kind of sign of the cross is that made in the air by bishops, priests, and others in blessing persons or material objects. This cross recurs also many times in the liturgy of the Mass and in nearly all the ritual offices connected with the sacraments and sacramentals.

  A third variety is represented by the little cross, generally made with the thumb, which the priest or deacon traces for example upon the book of the Gospels and then upon his own forehead, lips, and breast at Mass, as also that made upon the lips in the "Domine labia mea aperies" of the Office, or again upon the forehead of the infant in Baptism, and upon the various organs of sense in Extreme Unction, etc.

  Still another variant of the same holy sign may be recognized in the direction of the "Lay Folks Mass Book" (thirteenth century) that the people at the end of the Gospel should trace a cross upon the bench or wall or a book and then kiss it. It was prescribed in some early uses that the priest ascending to the altar before the Introit should first mark a cross upon the altar-cloth and then should kiss the cross so traced. Moreover it would seem that the custom, prevalent in Spain and some other countries, according to which a man, after making the sign of the cross in the ordinary way, apparently kisses his thumb, has a similar origin. The thumb laid across the forefinger forms an image of the cross to which the lips are devoutly pressed.

  Of all the above methods of venerating this life-giving symbol and adopting it as an emblem, the marking of a little cross seems to be the most ancient. We have positive evidence in the early Fathers that such a practice was familiar to Christians in the second century. "In all our travels and movements", says Tertullian (De cor. Mil., iii), "in all our coming in and going out, in putting of our shoes, at the bath, at the table, in lighting our candles, in lying down, in sitting down, whatever employment occupieth us, we mark our foreheads with the sign of the cross". On the other hand this must soon have passed into a gesture of benediction, as many quotations from the Fathers in the fourth century would show. Thus St. Cyril of Jerusalem in his "Catecheses" (xiii, 36) remarks: "let us then not be ashamed to confess the Crucified. Be the cross our seal, made with boldness by our fingers on our brow and in every thing; over the bread we eat and the cups we drink, in our comings and in goings; before our sleep, when we lie down and when we awake; when we are travelling, and when we are at rest".

  The course of development seems to have been the following. The cross was originally traced by Christians with the thumb or finger on their own foreheads. This practice is attested by numberless allusions in Patristic literature, and it was clearly associated in idea with certain references in Scripture, notably Ezekiel 9:4 (of the mark of the letter Tau); Exodus 17:9-14; and especially Apocalypse 7:3, 9:4 and 14:1. Hardly less early in date is the custom of marking a cross on objects — already Tertullian speaks of the Christian woman "signing" her bed (cum lectulum tuum signas, "Ad uxor.", ii, 5) before retiring to rest—and we soon hear also of the sign of the cross being traced on the lips (Jerome, "Epitaph. Paulæ") and on the heart (Prudentius, "Cathem.", vi, 129). Not unnaturally if the object were more remote, the cross which was directed towards it had to be made in the air. Thus Epiphanius tells us (Adv. Hær., xxx, 12) of a certain holy man Josephus, who imparted to a vessel of water the power of overthrowing magical incantations by "making over the vessel with his finger the seal of the cross" pronouncing the while a form of prayer. Again half a century later Sozomen, the church historian (VII, xxvi), describes how Bishop Donatus when attacked by a dragon "made the sign of the cross with his finger in the air and spat upon the monster". All this obviously leads up to the suggestion of a larger cross made over the whole body, and perhaps the earliest example which can be quoted comes to us from a Georgian source, possibly of the fourth or fifth century. In the life of St. Nino, a woman saint, honoured as the Apostle of Georgia, we are told in these terms of a miracle worked by her: "St. Nino began to pray and entreat God for a long time. Then she took her (wooden) cross and with it touched the Queen's head, her feet and her shoulders, making the sign of the cross and straightway she was cured" (Studia Biblica, V, 32).

  It appears on the whole probable that the general introduction of our present larger cross (from brow to breast and from shoulder to shoulder) was an indirect result of the Monophysite controversy. The use of the thumb alone or the single forefinger, which so long as only a small cross was traced upon the forehead was almost inevitable, seems to have given way for symbolic reasons to the use of two fingers (the forefinger and middle finger, or thumb and forefinger) as typifying the two natures and two wills in Jesus Christ. But if two fingers were to be employed, the large cross, in which forehead, breast, etc. were merely touched, suggested itself as the only natural gesture. Indeed some large movement of the sort was required to make it perceptible that a man was using two fingers rather than one. At a somewhat later date, throughout the greater part of the East, three fingers, or rather the thumb and two fingers were displayed, while the ring and little finger were folded back upon the palm. These two were held to symbolize the two natures or wills in Christ, while the extended three denoted the three Persons of the Blessed Trinity. At the same time these fingers were so held as to indicate the common abbreviation I X C (Iesous Christos Soter), the forefinger representing the I, the middle finger crossed with the thumb standing for the X and the bent middle finger serving to suggest the C. In Armenia, however, the sign of the cross made with two fingers is still retained to the present day. Much of this symbolism passed to the West, though at a later date.

  On the whole it seems probable that the ultimate prevalence of the larger cross is due to an instruction of Leo IV in the middle of the ninth century. "Sign the chalice and the host", he wrote, "with a right cross and not with circles or with a varying of the fingers, but with two fingers stretched out and the thumb hidden within them, by which the Trinity is symbolized. Take heed to make this sign rightly, for otherwise you can bless nothing" (see Georgi, "Liturg. Rom. Pont.", III, 37). Although this, of course, primarily applies to the position of the hand in blessing with the sign of the cross; it seems to have been adapted popularly to the making of the sign of the cross upon oneself. Aelfric (about 1000) probably had it in mind when he tells his hearers in one of his sermons: "A man may wave about wonderfully with his hands without creating any blessing unless he make the sign of the cross. But if he do the fiend will soon be frightened on account of the victorious token. With three fingers one must bless himself for the Holy Trinity" (Thorpe, "The Homilies of the Anglo-Saxon Church" I, 462). Fifty years earlier than this Anglo-Saxon Christians were exhorted to "bless all their bodies seven times with Christ's rood token" (Blicking Hom., 47), which seems to assume this large cross. Bede in his letter to Bishop Egbert advises him to remind his flock "with what frequent diligence to employ upon themselves the sign of our Lord's cross", though here we can draw no inferences as to the kind of cross made. On the other hand when we meet in the so-called "Prayer Book of King Henry" (eleventh century) a direction in the morning prayers to mark with the holy Cross "the four sides of the body", there is a good reason to suppose that the large sign with which we are now familiar is meant.

  At this period the manner of making it in the West seems to have been identical with that followed at present in the East, i.e. only three fingers were used, and the hand traveled from the right shoulder to the left. The point, it must be confessed, is not entirely clear and Thalhofer (Liturgik, I, 633) inclines to the opinion that in the passages of Belethus (xxxix), Sicardus (III, iv), Innocent III (De myst. Alt., II, xlvi), and Durandus (V, ii, 13), which are usually appealed to in proof of this, these authors have in mind the small cross made upon the forehead or external objects, in which the hand moves naturally from right to left, and not the big cross made from shoulder to shoulder. Still, a rubric in a manuscript copy of the York Missal clearly requires the priest when signing himself with the paten to touch the left shoulder after the right. Moreover it is at least clear from many pictures and sculptures that in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the Greek practice of extending only three fingers was adhered to by many Latin Christians. Thus the compiler of the Ancren Riwle (about 1200) directs his nuns at "Deus in adjutorium" to make a little cross from above the forehead down to the breast with three fingers". However there can be little doubt that long before the close of the Middle Ages the large sign of the cross was more commonly made in the West with the open hand and that the bar of the cross was traced from left to right. In the "Myroure of our Ladye" (p. 80) the Bridgettine Nuns of Sion have a mystical reason given to them for the practice: "And then ye bless you with the sygne of the holy crosse, to chase away the fiend with all his deceytes. For, as Chrysostome sayth, wherever the fiends see the signe of the crosse, they flye away, dreading it as a staffe that they are beaten withall. And in thys blessinge ye beginne with youre hande at the hedde downwarde, and then to the lefte side and byleve that our Lord Jesu Christe came down from the head, that is from the Father into erthe by his holy Incarnation, and from the erthe into the left syde, that is hell, by his bitter Passion, and from thence into his Father's righte syde by his glorious Ascension".

  The manual act of tracing the cross with the hand or the thumb has at all periods been quite commonly, though not indispensably, accompanied by a form of words. The formula, however, has varied greatly. In the earlier ages we have evidence for such invocation as "The sign of Christ", "The seal of the living God", "In the name of Jesus"; etc. Later we meet "In the name of Jesus of Nazareth", "In the name of the Holy Trinity", "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost", "Our help is in the name of the Lord", "O God come to my assistance". Members of the Orthodox Greek Church when blessing themselves with three fingers, as above explained, commonly use the invocation: "Holy God, Holy strong One, Holy Immortal One, Have mercy on us", which words, as is well known, have been retained in their Greek form by the Western Church in the Office for Good Friday.

  It is unnecessary to insist upon the effects of grace and power attributed by the Church at all times to the use of the holy sign of the cross. From the earliest period it has been employed in all exorcisms and conjurations as a weapon against the spirits of darkness, and it takes its place not less consistently in the ritual of the sacraments and in every form of blessing and consecration. A famous difficulty is that suggested by the making of the sign of the cross repeatedly over the Host and Chalice after the words of institution have been spoken in the Mass. The true explanation is probably to be found in the fact that at the time these crosses were introduced (they vary too much in the early copies of the Canon to be of primitive institution), the clergy and faithful did not clearly ask themselves at what precise moment the transubstantiation of the elements was effected. They were satisfied to believe that it was the result of the whole of the consecratory prayer which we call the Canon, without determining the exact words which were operative; just as we are now content to know that the Precious Blood is consecrated by the whole word spoken over the chalice, without pausing to reflect whether all the words are necessary. Hence the signs of the cross continue till the end of the Canon and they may be regarded as mentally referred back to a consecration which is still conceived of as incomplete. The process is the reverse of that by which in the Greek Church at the "Great Entrance" the highest marks of honour are paid to the simple elements of bread and wine in anticipation of the consecration which they are to receive shortly afterwards.


Do any Christian denominations believe in a "duality" rather than a trinity? I have heard that some non-trinitarian Christians reject the concept of the trinity and say that there is only one indivisible divinity. Are there any Christian denominations that believe in a "duality", i.e. that there are exactly two persons in the god-head?

Historically, there was a group of persons who claimed to be Christians, but denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit. They were derided by orthodox Christians as Pneumatomachoi (literally, “those who fight the Spirit”) or Macedonians (after the proponent of this idea, named Macedonius—no relation to the geographical region by that name).

The Macedonians were apparently “homoiousians”: those who affirmed that the nature of the Son is “similar” to that of the Father (a position that Athanasius discovered was actually nearly orthodox, at least as regards the divinity of the Son).

Hence, this sect could be said to have been “binitarian” or “dualitarian.”


Which manuscript was the LDS Book of Moses translated from? There is a whole Book of Moses that I cannot find any original manuscript for. Internally it clearly says that it is a translation "from the Bible":

  An extract from the translation of the Bible as revealed to Joseph Smith the Prophet, June 1830–February 1831.

What Bible would Joseph Smith be referencing and what would have been his source manuscripts? Also, were there fragments of this manuscript found with the Dead Sea Scrolls?

This is from an article in the Church Magazine The Ensign published January 1986

  The material constituting the eight chapters of the book of Moses is an extract from Joseph Smith’s translation of the Bible. More precisely, chapter one of Moses is an account of a revelation given to the Prophet Joseph just prior to, or at the commencement of, the translation, while Moses chapters two through eight constitute his translation of Genesis from chapter one through chapter six, verse thirteen. [Moses 1, 2–8; Gen. 1–6:13] The Joseph Smith translation of the Bible (hereafter identified as JST) began with Genesis and continued through the entire Bible to the book of Revelation. The initial draft of his Bible translation was made between June 1830 and July 1833. However, the short excerpt that we recognize as the book of Moses, being the early part of Genesis, was completed in its first draft by February 1831. 1

LDS.org "How We Got the Book of Moses"

BYU "History of the Book of Moses"

BYU-Idaho "The Book of Moses"

Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible

Bible Dictionary

  A revision or translation of the King James Version of the Bible begun by the Prophet Joseph Smith in June 1830. He was divinely commissioned to make the translation and regarded it as “a branch of his calling” as a prophet.

BYU

  Joseph Smith often used the words "translated" and "translation," not in the narrow sense alone of rendering a text from one language into another, but in the wider senses of "transmission," having reference to copying, editing, adding to, taking from, rephrasing, and interpreting. This is substantially beyond the usual meaning of "translation." When he said the Bible was not translated correctly, he not only was referring to the difficulties of rendering the Bible into another language but he was also observing that the manuscripts containing the text of the Bible have suffered at the hands of editors, copyists, and revisionists through centuries of transmission. Thus, the available texts of the Bible are neither as complete nor as accurate as when first written.

Bible Dictionary

  Although not the official Bible of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the JST offers many interesting insights and is an invaluable aid to biblical interpretation and understanding. It is a most fruitful source of useful information for the student of the scriptures. It is likewise a witness for the divine calling and ministry of the Prophet Joseph Smith.

Bible Dictionary "Joseph Smith Translation"

BYU "Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible (JST)


What is the biblical basis for in the catholic theology of a priest being in "persona christi"? What is the biblical basis for in the catholic theology of a priest being in "persona christi"?

The idea that only a Priest can conduct the NT Passover meal that Christ told us to "do in remembrance of Him" was for all believers surely?

Why is it that in Catholicism the Priest is essentially "in persona Christi" and is therefore the only way for a "valid" communion meal?

Where in the Bible is the justification for a Priest being in persona Christi? (an emphasis especially on the Eucharistic sacrament please, but also interested in the theology as a whole).

Thank you.

A priest is not being in "persona Christi" but the priest ACTS in the person of Christ(persona Christi) in pronouncing the words that comprise part of a sacramental rite.

For example, in the Mass, the Words of Institution, by which the bread becomes the Body of Christ and the wine becomes the Precious Blood. The priest and bishop ACT in the person of Christ the head in their leadership of the Church.

2 Corinthians 2:10

  Whomever you forgive anything, so do I. For indeed what I have
  forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for you in the
  presence of Christ,

Naturally, therefore, without consulting the Greek text, this verse would not necessarily leap out at one as being about the priesthood. But the Greek text says that St Paul forgave sins “en prosopo Christou”.

“Prosopon” in Greek literally means “face”. In the Trinitarian debates of the 4th Century, the Greeks used it to translate Tertullian’s use of the latin term “persona” for what we now commonly refer to as “the Persons” of the Holy Trinity. Working the other way, when Jerome translated made his new Latin translation of the bible, he used “persona” to translate “prosopon” in 2 Corinthians 2:10, thus making the text read:

  10 cui autem aliquid donatis et ego nam et ego quod donavi si quid
  donavi propter vos in persona Christi 11 ut non circumveniamur a
  Satana non enim ignoramus cogitationes eius

In English translations, both the Douay-Rheims and the King James Bible follow suit in translating “en prosopo Christou” as “in the person of Christ.”

As you can see, this certainly lends strong support to the Catholic doctrine of the priesthood (cf. CCC p1548 quoting 24 Pius XII, Mediator Dei: “Now the minister, by reason of the sacerdotal consecration which he has received, is truly made like to the high priest and possesses the authority to act in the power and place of the person of Christ himself (virtute ac persona ipsius Christi).)

Source


Why did Jesus keep some in the dark by using parables? I once heard someone say that parables are the best way to teach, because Jesus used them.  Of course this makes no sense because parables are very difficult to understand unless explained.

Jesus said this when the disciples asked why he was speaking in riddles through so many metaphors:

  The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?” 11 He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12 Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables: “Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand. (Matthew 13:10-13)

So the question is why would Jesus purposefully keep much of his teaching secret through parables? Why would he want some not to see and not to hear?

It's interesting that Jesus often ends the telling of a parable with the phrase "He who has ears to hear, let him hear."  (Matthew 11:15, 13:9, 43; Mark 4:9, 23; Luke 8:8)  During Jesus' life and ministry, much of Jesus' teaching was, indeed, veiled, but only to those who did not have ears to hear.  Perhaps those who really wanted to follow Jesus would either contemplate the parables until they understood them, or as happened to Peter, God would reveal the meaning of the parables to those who had ears to hear.  The scoffers would not be force fed with the teachings of Jesus, but could cast them away.  As C.S. Lewis noted, God cannot ravage--He can only woo.

The Meaning of Parables was veiled only for a short time

It is really important to note, however, that this veiling only occurred during the three years of Jesus' ministry.  Immediately after the resurrection, the proclamation of Jesus as the risen Lord went out to all people, not veiled in parables, but in clear teaching.  In fact, the more difficult parables that were explained in private to the disciples are now accessible to all people.  In fact, the disciples who freely recorded the meanings in the gospels also likely publicly proclaimed the meaning to all people then as well.

Many for whom the parables had been veiled likely came to faith in Jesus later

On the day of Pentecost, Peter preached to the thousands of Jews who had gathered for the feast.  It is quite reasonable to assert that many of these had been among those that had heard the parables of Jesus and had not understood them, and then rejected Jesus and called for His execution.  Peter lays this charge against them as he speaks.  However, we are informed that 3,000 of these people became followers of Jesus on that day alone.

Conclusion

So, the fullness of the Gospel was veiled for a short time.  Some people's hearts were hardened, and Jesus did not overwhelm them to the point of thwarting their own free will to reject them.  Others were perhaps not ready at that time, but did accept Jesus later.  Whatever the reason, the veiling was for a very short time, as today there is no "secret knowledge" in Christianity.  Anyone can read the parables and the explanations given to Jesus' disciples in private.  Indeed, the reader is invited into the most exclusive moments in the life of Jesus.


Since when have JWs said that United Nations will launch an attack on religion? I was reading some publications at wol.jw.org about the Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs pertaining to the end of the world, such as this article from which I quote below snippet:

  5 What yet unseen event will take place next? Paul stated: “Whenever
  it is that they are saying: ‘Peace and security!’ then sudden
  destruction is to be instantly upon them.” The first phase of this
  “sudden destruction” is the attack against “Babylon the Great,” the
  world empire of false religion, also known as “the harlot.” (Rev.
  17:5, 6, 15) That attack against all forms of false religion,
  including Christendom, is the start of the “great tribulation.” (Matt.
  24:21; 2 Thess. 2:8) For many, this event will come as a surprise.
  Why? Because up to that point, the harlot will confidently view
  herself as “a queen” who will “never see mourning.” But she will
  suddenly discover that she has miscalculated her chances of survival.
  She will be wiped out rather quickly, as if “in one day.”—Rev. 18:7,
  8.

  6 God’s Word identifies the harlot’s attacker as a “wild beast” with
  “ten horns.” A study of the book of Revelation shows that the wild
  beast refers to the United Nations (UN). “The ten horns” represent all
  present political powers that support this “scarlet-colored wild
  beast.”* (Rev. 17:3, 5, 11, 12) How devastating will the attack be?
  The nations of the UN will plunder the harlot’s wealth, expose her
  real character, devour her, and “completely burn her.” Her destruction
  will be final.

What I wanted to know is, is this some modern idea among Jehovah's Witnesses that United Nations will attack religion? Or since when have they believed that this is what those events in the book of Revelation refer to?

Even before the United Nations existed, Jehovah's Witnesses have held the position that the United Nations is going to destroy false religion. The belief originates from back when its predecessor, the League of Nations, was formed in 1920.

Christian clergymen at that time were heralding the League of Nations as the organization that would bring about the Kingdom of God. This was seen as a big warning sign to the Bible Students at that time, since 1914 was believed to have been when Jesus began ruling over God's Kingdom from heaven, and the League of Nations was clearly being formed as mankind's attempt at world peace, not God's.

Here are some older Watchtower publications which describe these events:

w53 9/15 "Flight to Safety with the New World Society" para. 19, 20
g85 10/8 "A Vision Rejected"
w85 10/1 "A 'Disgusting Thing' Fails to Bring Peace" para. 12-14
w54 11/15 "Is World Unity a Dream?" para. 15


What's a Papist exactly? Is a papist always a Catholic who is wholly supportive of the Pope?

Must one be some sort of cleric or theologian to be considered by detractors as a papist or were every day catholic peasants and bums considered papists by people like Luther.

From my own reading of Luther, Calvin, etc., papist is a derogatory term referring to any Roman Catholic who accepts the Pope  as a legitimate authority from God during the time of the reformation. The reformers might not have spoken as harshly against Catholics in previous generations.  After all at some point in time even Luther would have regarded the Catholic church as having legitamate authority before turning away from the gospel of grace, to works:

Here is a sample quote from Luther clearly including all Roman Catholics under the term 'papist':

  First, nobody can deny that we, as well as the papists, have received holy baptism and because of that are called Christians. (Luther's Works  41.194)


Marks of the true church in Protestantism or Catholicism? Although this very related question about the marks of the true church in Reformed Theology has already been asked, my question is whether other Protestant traditions or Catholicism have an equivalent set of requirements for what they consider the true church?

In Catholicism, the marks of the Church are that she is

one
holy
catholic
apostolic

these words are taken from the second part of the Nicene creed, which is commonly prayed at every Mass and the tenents of which are generally accepted by mainline Protestant denominations.

I think, but have very little basis for this thought, that Protestant reformers used the word Marks to mean something different. And perhaps it means something different coming over to English from Latin as well as German, we just had one word that meant two totally separate things

Catholics use them as adjective to describe their Church, not as adjectives to describe the ideal church because they know that even though the Church is composed of fallen members, she is the ideal and would continue to be the ideal even if she had no members left alive.

more info in the Catechism


Is there a standard Christian ontology? I have asked earlier how Christians understand God in relation to the scientific concept of energy.  Ultimately that line of questioning was stopped by the observation that my ontology was very different from the likely respondents.  While I addressed the issue of ontology in the physics stack exchange (and consequently had the question moved to the philosophy stack exchange), there seemed to be very little interest and even less consensus on a coherent and widely accepted ontology.  This got me wondering,

Is there a widely (or historically) accepted Christian ontology?

FYI: My personal definition of "existence" would run something like "that property which, when possessed by a well defined object, allows for causal interaction with other well defined objects that share the property of existence."

St. Augustine of Hippo was influenced, and in many ways owed his conversion, to the writings of the neo-platonists.

Most Christians would accept him as the most prolific Christian philosopher of the first millennium; St. Thomas Aquinas, as his successor in the next millennium, reintroduced his wisdom in the form of the Summa Theologica; wherein you will find all your answers.

Catholic encyclopedia also has a good treatment on Existence.

In my own words, I'd say that Catholic philosophy defines existence, as we know it, as God's creation. God, on the other hand, is the prime mover.  Existence does not signify matter or energy, as Angels exist and the immortal soul exists yet are not observable.  And God's existence, as a pure spirit, cannot be defined my the human intellect.


To the Lutherans ELCA, how is the Bible the word of God? A. The Bible is the Word of God.
(means, all the words we read are the Words of God)

B. The Bible contains the Word of God.
(means, not all the words we read are the Words of God)

C. other than A and B.

Example :

  I decided that while I was with you I would forget everything except
  Jesus Christ, the one who was crucified

The speaker is human, the Apostle.
The question is : are those words above the words of God ?

To me, the answer is no. Those words are the words of human not the words of God.

If I say that those words are the words of God, --->

then (X) the "I" in those words means God himself ---->

Then (Y) it become : through the mouth of the Apostle, God tell the hearers/readers that He (capital H) decided while He was with them, He would forget everything except His Second Person of His Trinity, the one who was crucified.

Because X and Y to me feel awkward, I conclude [not all the words we read in the Bible are the Words of God]. Then it's B. But this is only my own logic.

That's why I would like to know :
according to the ELCA is it A ? B ? or C?
If C, what is it ?

Thank you.

The Evangeical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) teaches that the Bible contains the word of God, but not necessarily that it is inerrant. They represent the overwhelming majority of Lutherans in the United States. This would fall under option B as presented in your question. Here is an excerpt from their Statement of Faith in their Constitution:

2.02. This church confesses Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and the Gospel as the power of God for the salvation of all who believe.
a. Jesus Christ is the Word of God incarnate, through whom everything was made and through whose life, death, and resurrection God fashions a new creation.
b. The proclamation of God’s message to us as both Law and Gospel is the Word of God, revealing judgment and mercy through word and deed, beginning with the Word in creation, continuing in the history of Israel, and centering in all its fullness in the person and work of Jesus Christ.
c. The canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the written Word of God. Inspired by God’s Spirit speaking through their authors, they record and announce God’s revelation centering in Jesus Christ. Through them God’s Spirit speaks to us to create and sustain Christian faith and fellowship for service in the world.
2.03. This church accepts the canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the inspired Word of God and the authoritative source and norm of its proclamation, faith, and life.

Source: http://download.elca.org/ELCA%20Resource%20Repository/Constitutions_Bylaws_and_Continuing_Resolutions_of_the_ELCA.pdf?_ga=2.229267033.455568450.1507004619-1273167286.1507004619


Among modern critics who believe in the attributed authorship of the Gospels, what are their arguments? According to the many online lectures by biblical scholars, not to mention entries in  Wikipedia and other online sites, whether the experts are on either the liberal side or the conservative side of the table, they all state the four Gospels were actually anonymous works and that someone appended the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John to them long after the anonymous writers wrote them.

The average person you talk with has no idea of this, and he or she wholly believe the actual eyewitnesses (viz., the apostles) wrote the Gospels.

I am interested in the views of critical scholars who believe the Gospels were written by the men whose names are appended to them. I am not interested in purely religious answers such as, "The Holy Spirit guided the church to ascribe authorship to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John."  Would someone please 1) point  me to scholars in the field of historical criticism who believe the attributions are accurate; and more importantly 2) summarize their arguments for me?

This is part two of a two part answer.  See my previous post for general arguments.
Specific books
Matthew
External - On Matthew Papias writes, "Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew language,  and each interpreted them as best he could.".  This is probably the most debated phrase in all of the patristic writings - the words translated as "oracles", "Hebrew language", and "interpreted" are all ambiguous.  One possible, natural reading is that Matthew wrote a Gospel in Aramaic and other people then translated from that.  Critiques use this interpretation of Papias' statement against his accuracy because we "know" our Matthew was written in Greek and doesn't show signs of being translated.4
However, there are several other possible translations - some critical scholars see the statement as a reference to the hypothetical Q document that lies behind portions of Luke and Matthew, which does show signs of Aramaic-isms.  Others have suggested Papias actually meant something like "written in the Hebrew style".4
Whatever Papias meant exactly, we can be pretty sure he knew of a Greek Gospel of Matthew.  (Papias himself wrote in and spoke Greek and quotes from Matthew are known from works predating Papias.)  We also know that there was an Aramaic Gospel closely associated with the Gospel of Matthew (by contemporaries) that survived for several hundred years and was used by the church in Palestine.  Since this document has not survived to the present day, scholars can't judge what it was exactly.  Still, that means there are several possible ways Papias could be accurate within our knowledge - Matthew could have written a Gospel in Aramaic and also a version in Greek from scratch (i.e. he was bilingual so didn't need to translate); Matthew could have written a Q-like document in Aramaic that was translated and then expanded; Matthew could have written in Greek, but in the "Hebrew style" (i.e. that he Gospel was aimed towards Jews); and so on.  As such, dismissing Papais as inaccurate is unwarranted.
In any case, writing not long after Papias, Irenaeus also attests Matthean authorship and appears to be drawing upon an independent tradition to do so.  (He states when the gospel was authored, a subject Papias did not touch upon as far as we know.) Irenaeus knew Polycarp, who is thought to be a disciple of John the Apostle, so he likely had access to good information.  Matthean authorship is then continually attested to by church fathers for the next several hundred years.  Summing up the external evidence, Donald Guthrie writes:8

there is no conclusive reason for rejecting the strong external testimony regarding the authorship of Matthew

Internal -  The strongest internal evidence of authorship comes from Matthew 9:9-13.  This passage in the Gospel of Matthew has a couple differences when compared to the parallel passages of Mark 2:13-17 and Luke 5:27-32.  Most notably, Matthew calls the tax collector "Matthew" while the other Gospels call him "Levi".  Yet all three Gospels list Matthew, not Levi, as a disciple of Jesus in their lists of the 12 (Matthew 10:2-4; Mark 3:16-18; Luke 6:13-16).  Matthew's list, however, does have a difference - he adds the words "the tax collector" after Matthew's name.  D. A. Hagner argues that the most natural explanation is that Matthew is adding a self-deprecating identification to 10:3 and substituting his new (apostolic) name in 9:9-13, just as Peter (originally Simon) and Paul (originally Saul) do in their own works.9
In support of this conclusion is Matthew 9:10, where the author says "the house" instead of "his house" as the other Gospels.  This is the kind of subtle difference one would expect if Matthew was the author of the Gospel that bears his name.  The strength of this argument is underscored by the fact that some who reject Matthean authorship suggest this passage was the cause of the "anonymous" work becoming associated with Matthew.  However, Daniel B. Wallace argues that an admirer of Matthew would be unlikely to adopt the subtle deprecation of the apostle, and that only Matthean authorship adequately explains the data.10
Briefly on additional evidence, Donald Senior sees the literary style of Matthew as compatible with Matthean authorship.11  Wallace, Gundry, and others notes Matthew's frequent use of precise monetary terms and his use of unique parables with monetary themes as evidence that someone familiar with money wrote the Gospel.8, 10  C. F. D. Moule suggests several subtle self-references and E. J. Goodspeed suggests Matthew would have have been uniquely equipped among the disciples to take shorthand notes during Jesus' ministry.12, 13
Objections - The most common objection to Matthean authorship is that Matthew appears to rely on Mark for a significant portion of his Gospel.  A true disciple of Jesus would surely not rely on a non-disciple the argument goes.  In response, it first should be noted that while the most popular solution to the Synoptic problem, Markean priority is far from certain.
More crucially, it is simply an assumption, not a fact, that a disciple wouldn't use a non-disciple as a source.  Our knowledge of contemporary writing suggests the practice of reusing another's work was quite common.  Additionally, Paul quotes Greek philosophers in a couple of places, but no one suggests that means he viewed them as authoritative.  Finally, if Matthew knew (or at least thought) that the Gospel of Mark is based on the teaching of Peter (see the next section), there is not even a hint of a conflict.4
Mark
External - Mark has arguably the best external witness of any Gospel, starting with Papias who writes:

Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered... he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter... [Mark] took special care, not to omit anything he had heard [from Peter], and not to put anything fictitious into the statements.6

This testimony, according to Papias, comes from the "elder John," which probably is meant to refer to the apostle John.  According to Wallace, the most notable thing here is despite a strong desire to tie scripture to apostles, Papias (and later church fathers) do not attribute the Gospel of Mark to Peter.  If one was simply ascribing a name to an anonymous work, there would be no reason to choose a follower of Peter instead of Peter himself.  Indeed, if "according to X" merely meant "according to the teaching of X", as some critics argue, then this Gospel would be called the "Gospel according to Peter".  The fact that the fathers resisted the temptation to attribute the Gospel to Peter enhances their credibility not just here, but also on other authorship testimony.14
After Papias, Mark's authorship is directly attested to by Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Irenaeus, and The Anti-Marcionite prologue within the next hundred years.  Tertullian and Justin Martyr also indirectly support the testimony (i.e. in off-hand remarks in Biblical commentary).  Some of these accounts are, no doubt, dependent on each other.  However, there is also much independent testimony in these varied accounts.  John A.T. Robinson, who does not necessarily believe the accuracy of the tradition in regards to other Gospel writers, says that one should "take seriously the tradition" in regards to Mark and that Markean authorship for, at minimum, the first draft of Mark is probable.15  Guthrie considers that the external evidence is conclusive, writing there is no need to "do little more than mention [it]".8
Internal - Since we don't know a great deal about Mark the person, internal evidence will naturally not be super strong.  However, Hengel argues that the simple Greek of Mark is completely compatible with a Christian raised in Jerusalem.16  A.B. Bruce suggests that the description of the young man in Mark 14:51-52 reads like an autobiographical insert, which agrees with the early church tradition that the Last Supper took place at Mark's parents house.17
More compelling, there is good evidence that the Gospel was written by someone close to Peter.  Scholars such as Michael F. Bird and Richard Bauckham have argued that Mark used a technique called inclusio, which is thought to have been used by secular historians of the period, to bracket eyewitness testimony.  Since Peter regularly appears at the start and end of such passages, Mark is thus implying that Peter is the eyewitness behind those particular accounts.18
Detailed word studies, such as the work of C. H. Turner, have shown that there is a pattern in the use of third person plurals in passages involving Peter that read as if an original first person plural has been substituted. This is a literary technique known as the "plural-to-singular device."  Writing on this phenomenon, F.F. Bruce states "the reader can receive from such passages 'a vivid impression of the testimony [of Peter] that lies behind the Gospel'".19
Objections - The most common objection to Markean authorship seems to be that Mark (allegedly) commits geographical errors, betraying that he is not a native of Palestine.  First, this seems like an incredibly weak reason to reject all the other evidence, in my opinion.  Surely a person can have less-than-perfect knowledge of the geography of their home region.  More importantly, such claims of inaccuracy do not stand up to scrutiny.4  One example will be sufficient to illustrate the point.  Mark 7:31 states:

Then Jesus left the vicinity of Tyre and went through Sidon, down to the Sea of Galilee and into the region of the Decapolis.

Some critics have interpreted this to mean that Jesus went through Sidon in order to get to the Sea of Galilee, which would be the wrong direction.  However, it need not mean more than that He went to Sidon and then to the Sea of Galilee.  Even ignoring that simple solution, Douglas Edwards notes:20

even the Jesus movement's travel from Tyre to Sidon to the Decapolis depicted in Mark... is, in fact, quite plausible. Josephus notes that ... a dispute regarding boundaries arose between Sidon and Damascus, a city of the Decapolis. It is therefore conceivable that the movement headed east toward Damascus and then south through the region of the Decapolis, following major roads linking Damascus with either Caesarea Philippi or Hippos.

Luke
External - Among the Gospels, Luke's is the one where the attribution is most likely to be original (i.e., that is was on the autograph).   M. Dibelius argues that a work addressed to an individual (Theophilus) would normally also contain the name of the person it came from (on an external tag).  Furthermore, it seems clear that the author of Luke intended his work to be widely distributed, which would normally require a title or name attached to the work.21
Lukan authorship is attested to by Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, the Muratorian Fragment, Origen, the Anti-Marcionite Prologue, and Tertullian by the end of second century.  Perhaps most notably, the heretic Marcion accepted Lukan authorship while rejecting the other three Gospels as "too Jewish".  Despite this, the Church continued to accept the Gospel and continued to attribute it to a relatively unknown figure.  There are no dissenting voices among the church fathers, despite numerous possible Pauline figures to pick from (i.e. even if we assume the Church knew that the Gospel of Luke was associated with Paul, there is no compelling reason why Luke was unanimously chosen.)  Summing up this evidence, Darrell L. Bock concludes:22

Such unanimity, when numerous Pauline companion candidates exist, argues for the veracity of this identification.

Internal - A discussion about the internal authorship of Luke will naturally start with Acts, where the evidence is strong.  (Nearly all scholars believe Acts and Luke were written by the same person, regardless of their opinion of the author's identity.)  Even a casual reading of Acts will reveal two things - after the first few chapters, Paul receives most of the writer's attention and many of the later passages use the first person plural (collectively called the "we passages").
The most natural reason for the increasingly heavy emphasis on Paul as Acts progresses is that the author was a follower of Paul and thus had more detailed information about Paul than other early church leaders.  The most natural explanation for the use of "we", especially since it does not occur throughout Acts, but instead only in places, is that the author is among the group of people referred to in such passages.  Examining all the known companions/part-time companions of Paul, Guthrie finds that the only other person who seems likely to have been present on all occasions is Luke.8  Andreas J. Köstenberger, L. Scott Kellum, and Charles Quarles have additional cited reasons, apart from the "we passages", why each of these people is an unlikely author of (Luke-)Acts.23
To reduce the force of this conclusion, some critics have suggested that the author had access to the travel diary of a companion of Paul.  However, the "we passages" are written in the same style as the rest of the work, meaning that the author would have had to rewrite these passages in his own style while choosing not to change the pronoun.  As Carson and Moo correctly conclude, "this is highly improbable".4
Objections - The chief objections to Lukan authorship are a couple of apparent discrepancies between the person of Paul in his own writings and in Acts and supposed differences between the theology of Paul and Luke.
On the apparent historical discrepancies Wallace notes that, even if they are true discrepancies, this doesn't really argue against Lukan authorship - a companion could mis-remember a detail just as easily as an outsider could be misinformed.24  Indeed, if the author was only pretending to be a follower of Paul, one would think he would make sure to match the details to that which was known from the letters of Paul (those that think Luke was not the author almost universally date the work late, by which time Paul's letters were surely circulating.)  Furthermore, Carson and Moo as well as Guthrie have examined the alleged discrepancies and found no differences that cannot easily be explained by different writers (neither of which was intending to write a comprehensive history) choosing to emphasize different details of the same events.4, 8
In regards to theology, the differences, to my mind, have been greatly exaggerated - casual readers usually don't detect any difference.  Furthermore, differences really only tell us that Paul himself did not write Luke-Acts.  That a student could have a slightly different theology than his teacher is hardly surprising.  That said, it will be worthwhile to examine one such difference: the use of the OT Law.  In Acts, Paul follows the Law by, for example, having Timothy circumcised (16:3) and participating in temple  purification rites (21:17-26).  In his own letters, Paul recommends against circumcision (Galatians 5:2-4) and ritual restrictions (1 Corintians 8-10).  This appears to be a serious contradiction, but only via a caricature of Paul.  In reality, Paul's view of the Law is much more nuanced.  He says he is willing to follow the Law when it is beneficial to do so (1 Corinthians 9:19-22) and says circumcision or uncircumcision is a meaningless difference (Galatians 6:15).  For these reasons,  Richard N. Longenecker concludes that there are no material difference between the theology of Luke and Paul.25
John
Finally, we turn to John, the only book where there would be a clear motive for the attributed authorship - John was one of the most important apostles.  Naturally, this does not itself argue against the authorship, but, perhaps, means we should demand strong evidence to uphold it.  That, in my opinion, is exactly what we find.
External - The strongest testimony in favor of Johannine authorship for the Gospel of John comes from Irenaeus.  In a letter to Florinus, Irenaeus vividly recalls learning from Polycarp in his youth.  He states that Polycarp (c. 70-156) was a follower of John and otherwise received testimony from eyewitnesses.4  Thus, Irenaeus' testimony on things related to John comes from a very good authority.  On the Gospel of John, he writes:26

John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

On this evidence, Guthrie remarks:8

There can be no doubt, therefore, that Irenaeus accepted John the apostle as author of the Gospel ... on the basis of Polycarp’s testimony.

Further second century testimony to Johannine authorship is found in Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen ,Theophilus of Antioch, the Muratorian Canon, and the Anti-Marcionite Prologue.  The last of which is especially interesting because it references Papias as its source.  (The relevant portion of Papias' work hasn't survived [very little of his work has], but there is no particular reason to doubt that he wrote that John was the author of the Gospel of John.)  Since Papias himself was a follower of John, Carson and Moo argue that his testimony on the authorship is especially strong evidence.4
In addition to the usual Patristic testimony, there is strong evidence for the attribution of the Gospel of John in manuscript evidence.  Wallace points out that there are two manuscripts of John - P66 and P75 - which date to the end of the second century and attest to Johannine authorship.  Textual analysis shows the two manuscripts are not closely related and that their common ancestor must precede them by at least three generations.  Furthermore, another early manuscript, B, shows signs of being more primitive than P75.  The earliest known New Testament manuscript, P52, also comes from John.  It doesn't contain the start of the Gospel, so can't itself attest authorship, but does definitely prove the Gospel was written before the year 100.  Together, the documentary evidence suggests that the Gospel of John was quickly accepted by the church and widely distributed, and that the attribution was (at minimum) very early.27
Internal - The internal evidence for Johannine authorship is also very strong.  Indeed, some critics argue it is "too strong" to be trusted.  The most famous argument for Johannine authorship is B. F. Westcott's "concentric proofs", expanded by Leon Morris:28

The author was a Jew
The author was a Jew in Palestine
The author was an eyewitness
The author was an apostle
The author was the apostle John

The first two points were once disputed, but the discovery of the Qumran literature (Dead Sea Scrolls), showing John's themes were well within the norm for contemporary Judaism have convinced nearly all scholars of the accuracy of the first point.  The second point is no longer disputed either, as archaeological finds have demonstrated the author of John had an intimate knowledge of Palestine.4, 19
On the third point, there are numerous passages that suggest an eyewitness report.  For example, 1:14 says "we have seen his glory".  Careful analysis of this passage reveals not only the first person plural, but also a verb (θεάομαι) that normally signifies a physical examination.27  On the forth point, the author seems to have intimate knowledge of what happened in Jesus' inner circle. For example, 4:27 ("Just then his disciples came back", ESV) and 6:19 ("When they had rowed about three or four miles").  In favor of the fifth point is the author's use of "John" to describe John the Baptist.  This suggests that the author was either completely unaware of the apostle John, an unlikely possibility, or expected his readers to naturally distinguish between the two Johns.  The most natural explanation for this is that the writer is John and that his audience would know that he uses "the disciple who Jesus loved" when he talks about himself.28
Objections - The chief objections to Johannine authorship are the use of "beloved disciple" moniker and the high theology of John's Gospel.  On the first point, the idea is that while an admirer of John may give him such a title, no Christian author, especially not a humble apostle, would give themselves such a title.  On this objection, Carson and Moo state point blank that it "should be abandoned" as it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.  When a New Testament writer says God/Jesus loves them "it is never to suggest that other believers are not loved or are somehow loved less."  (See, for example, Galatians 2:20 and Ephesians 3:14-21.)  For them, the moniker is not a mark of arrogance, but rather a mark of "brokenness".  That is, John sees himself as needing Jesus' love.4
"Theological development" is notoriously subjective - who is to say how long it "must" have taken for a high Christology to develop?  To claim such a framework can be developed a priori and then the New Testament fit into that framework, and that this then proves a late date for a given work, is nothing more than begging the question.  When the idea was first developed in the early 1800s, the proponents of the technique were convinced the Gospel of John must have been written late in the second or early in the third century because of connections to ideas popular at that time.  The manuscript discoveries since then (cited above) have proven this date utterly impossible, yet some scholars still hold to such subjective methodologies - the time frame is collapsed to fit the external realities, but the idea that John reflects "development" of theology remains.
Even if we allow such considerations, it is not a problem for Johannine authorship.  According to the church fathers, John lived into the last decade of the first century.  One might doubt their testimony, but certainly it would be foolish to say it is impossible that John lived that long, and the Gospel could hardly have been written any later than the 90s based on the hard documentary evidence.  Furthermore, Robinson turns the high theology argument completely on its head.  He asks, is it really plausible the writer of what many throughout church history have described as one of the greatest pieces of theology ever written would be completely forgotten?  He says to make such a conclusion shows "an indifference to evidence (or rather to the lack of it)", for there is, in fact, no concrete evidence for any author other than John.  Remarking on the unexplained oddities that various different hypothetical authors create, he concludes:29

I find it much easier to believe ... that this disciple himself 'wrote these things', and that this certificate, given in his presence, is true [a reference to John 21:24]... It is these self-created aporiai, or perplexities, in Johannine studies which seem to me so much more baffling that the breaks and discontinuities at which critics balk...  In fact ironically it is the lack of final reduction to which the evidence most powerfully points.

Conclusion
The most obvious conclusion is that I failed in my goal to keep this answer to a reasonable length. :) In truth, though, I've only covered a fraction of the evidence and have barely touched on the arguments in support of the evidence...
The external authorship for the Gospels is very strong, stronger than almost any secular work of antiquity.  If what we were talking about was not religious in nature, I doubt anyone would reject the attributed authors.  It is only by deciding that the nature of the works means they would have been anonymous tracts that developed over time that the abundance of early witnesses for authorship are brushed aside.  However, this decision is entirely a priori, lacking in hard evidence to support it.  Despite an abundance of textual variations in other places, there are no extant copies of the Gospels that have different authors attached; nor is there any conflicting witness about authorship among the church fathers.
Furthermore, in the cases of Luke and Mark, there is no plausible reason why such figures would be picked as authors of anonymous works; all of the evidence suggests the early church desired apostolic authorship for its scriptures, yet two of the four Gospels bear the name of non-apostles.  If the church fathers were truly making things up, we would expect variation in their attribution and would expect them to pick "bigger" names.  How the universal church came to accept the attributed authors of widely circulated "anonymous" works, without any dispute or variation, would be quite a mystery.  Thus, lightly tossing aside the Gospel attributions is unwarranted - we must have solid internal evidence to consider the proposition.
Looking at the internal evidence, there is nothing to seriously challenge the authorial attributions.  There are a few minor oddities, sure, but nothing that is not easily explained by a careful examination of the evidence.  And in most cases, there is internal evidence that can best be explained by the traditional author.  In total, the internal evidence affirms the traditional authors much more than it argues against them, as each Gospel's characteristics are just as we'd expect if the attributions were accurate.  By its nature, such evidence can't be conclusive, but certainly provides no reason to doubt the testimony of the church fathers, and some reasons to believe them.
Combining the external and internal evidence, I and the two dozen or so authors I cited, conclude that there is sufficient reason to trust the "according to X" titles that appear on our Gospels.  In their quest for the "real story" behind the New Testament, some scholars have been too quick to dismiss what to a historian working on secular history would be quite compelling evidence.  Most likely, the Gospels were written by the people who the Church has always believed wrote them.

See part one for list of citations


Would frozen holy water still retain its blessing? Say that a person had a container with holy water and the water within it froze. Would that frozen holy water still retain its blessing and be efficacious in protecting against evil, be able to be used in baptism, etc?

Changes of state are accidental changes, not substantial changes—viz., frozen water is still water, despite it changing temperature, density, having a different amount of air dissolved in it, etc.

The 1957 Missal's De Defectibus ("Defects in the Celebration of the Mass") contains this statement about if the consecrated Blood of Christ freezes:

  Si in hieme Sanguis congeletur in Calice, involvatur Calix pannis calefactis: si id non proficeret, ponatur in ferventi aqua prope Altare, dummodo in Calicem non intret, donec liquefiat.If in the winter the Blood freezes in the Chalice, wrap the Chalice with warm cloths: if this does not work, put [the Chalice] in hot water near the Altar, such that the it does not enter the Chalice, until [the Blood] liquefies.

It does not say that frozen Blood of Christ ceases to be His Blood. Similarly, frozen holy water is still holy water.


Is there a verse about "big" and "small" lies being the same in God's kingdom? I am looking for a certain verse or passage.

The one I'm looking for contains statements about there being no such thing as a "small" lie or "big" lie and that lies are all the same in God's kingdom.

This might be the idea you're going for:

  James 2:10-11 ESV For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. For he who said, “You shall not commit adultery,” also said, “You shall not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.

"...just one point..." being the key statement. If you tell a "small lie" but don't tell a "big" one, you are just as much a law breaker before God because your heart intended to deceive in either case.


Has the term "born again" always been synonymous with baptism with the Christians of the Early Church? Has the term "born again" always been synonymous with baptism with the Christians of the Early Church?

St. Irenaeus (202) wrote the following in 185, which many claim it refers to infant baptism:

  Irenaeus, c. A.D. 185:

  He came to save all through means of Himself—all … who through Him are born again to God—infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission … (Against Heresies II:22:4)

The article on infant baptism from this site claims that the term "born again" was synonymous with baptism to early Christians.

  Note here that the term "born again" was synonymous with baptism to early Christians. That really didn't change until the time of the pietists in the 17th century.

Is there any historical evidence to support the contrary of this statement in the Early Church or the Church Fathers?

Some Clarification

You question specifically asks if there were any in the Early Church (~2nd to 4th century) who separated "born again" with baptism. Meanwhile, the site you quote claims that this separation took place in the 17th century. Because your question is only concerned with the Early Church, I will not consider any of the possible historical data from the 5th to 17th century.

It is also a bit dangerous to say anyone regards "born again" as being synonymous with baptism. They are two difference terms which have slightly difference meanings--even to those believing in baptismal regeneration. It is similar to how "regeneration" means something slightly different than "born again" despite the fact that most Christians regard them as mostly describing the same event.

Therefore, I take it that when you ask if early Christians all thought that "born again" was synonymous with baptism that you mean to ask if early Christians all thought that "born again" generally describes the event of baptism.

Perhaps a better way to have asked the question would been to ask if there were any early Christians who did not believe in baptismal regeneration. But no worries, I will still answer the question in the terms you've used.

The Answer

The short answer to your question is that there is absolutely no historical data from the Early Church demonstrating that any early Christians understood "born again" as being significantly distinct from baptism. On the contrary, there are a plethora of quotes from the Early Church demonstrating that these Christians understood the two terms to be nearly synonymous. Here are a few.

Theophilus of Antioch in 181 CE

  Moreover, those things which were created from the waters were blessed
  by God, so that this might also be a sign that men would at a future
  time receive repentance and remission of sins through water and the
  bath of regeneration -- all who proceed to the truth and are born
  again and receive a blessing from God. (To Autolycus 2:16)

Irenaeus in 190 CE

  "And [Naaman] dipped himself...seven times in the Jordan" [2 Kings
  5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from
  leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an
  indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by
  means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old
  transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even
  as the Lord has declared: "Except a man be born again through water
  and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven."
  (Fragment 34)

Recognitions of Clement 221 CE. Notice in this quote that the author mis-remembers John 3:5 leaving out the critical "and of the Spirit."

  But you will perhaps say, "What does the baptism of water contribute toward
  the worship of God?" In the first place, because that which has
  pleased God is fulfilled. In the second place, because when you are
  regenerated and born again of water and of God, the frailty of your
  former birth, which you have through men, is cut off, and so ...you
  shall be able to attain salvation; but otherwise it is impossible. For
  thus has the true Prophet [Jesus] testified to us with an oath:
  "Verily, I say to you, that unless a man is born again of water [sic] he
  shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." (Recognitions 6:9)

Cyprian of Carthage 200-258 CE

  [When] they receive also the Baptism of the Church...then finally can they be fully
  sanctified and be the sons of God...since it is written, "Except a man
  be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the
  kingdom of God." (Letters 71[72]:1)

Conclusion

There are many more quotes I could fish up for you, but I believe I have given you enough of a starting point. While we could never be historically certain that no early Christians thought "born again" and baptism were significantly distinct, it is indeed very odd that there are no surviving documents demonstrating their existence.