When did Mary and Joseph marry? They were only engaged when Mary was concieved by the Holy Spirit, correct?

They would have had to marry before Jesus' birth, correct? In order for him not to be considered a bastard born out of wedlock?

When were Joseph and Mary considered married?

Well, I am not going to say it was on January 23 in the year 4 BC. That much is sure!

The Catholic Church does however celebrate the a liturgical feast on the 23rd of January, known as the Espousals of the Blessed Virgin Mary or Marriage of the Virgin Mary (Desponsatio Beatae Mariae Virginis).

  A feast of the Latin Church. It is certain that a real matrimony was contracted by Joseph and Mary. Still Mary is called "espoused" to Joseph ("his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph", Matthew 1:18) because the matrimony was never consummated. The term spouse is applied to married people until their marriage is consummated (Colvenerius, Cal. Marian., 23 Jan.). - Espousals of the Blessed Virgin Mary

What is certain is that St. Joseph must have betrothed Mary prior to the Annunciation of the Angel Gabriel, that much is sure. However, since Mary and Joseph were dwelling together onlookers would assume the baby was conceived in wedlock. It seems that at this time in history only Our Lady and St. Joseph were aware of Jesus' divine origins.

  When the Archangel Gabriel visited Mary and declared unto her that she was called to be the Mother of God, as we see recorded in Luke 1, her response would become the cause of the spilling of a whole lot of ink over the centuries: “How shall this happen, since I know not man?”.

  For Catholics this is an indication of Mary’s vow of perpetual virginity. It’s really quite simple. If Mary and Joseph were just an ordinary couple embarking on a normal married life together, there would be no reason to ask the question. Mary would have known very well how it could be that the Angel was saying she would have a baby. As St. Augustine said it:

  Had she intended to know man, she would not have been amazed. Her amazement is a sign of the vow (Sermon 225, 2).

  But Protestants do not see it as quite so simple. Reformed Apologist James White gives us an example of the most common objection to our “Catholic” view of this text:

  Nothing about a vow is mentioned in Scripture. Mary’s response to the Angel was based upon the fact that it was obvious that the Angel was speaking about an immediate conception, and since Mary was at that time only engaged to Joseph, but not married, at that time she could not possibly conceive in a natural manner, since she did not “know a man” (Mary—Another Redeemer? p. 31.).

  Among the errors in just these two sentences there are two that stand out for our purpose here.

  Error #1: Mr. White claims Mary was engaged to St. Joseph.

  There was no such thing as engagement (as it is understood in modern Western culture) in ancient Israel. The text says Mary was “betrothed” or “espoused” (Gr.—emnesteumene), not engaged. Betrothal, in ancient Israel, would be akin to the ratification of a marriage (when a couple exchanges vows in the presence of an official witness of the Church) in Catholic theology. That ratified marriage is then consummated—in the normal course—on the couple’s wedding night. So when Luke 1:27 says Mary was betrothed, it means they were already married at the time of the annunciation. If this were an ordinary marriage, St. Joseph would then have had a husband’s right to the marriage bed—the consummation.

  This simple truth proves devastating to Mr. White’s (and the Protestant's) argument. If Joseph and Mary were married—and they were—and they were planning the normal course, Mary would have known full and well how she could and would have a baby. As St. Augustine said, the question reveals the fact that this was not just your average, ordinary marriage. They were not planning to consummate their union.

  Betrothed = Married?

  For those who are not convinced “betrothed” equals “married” for Mary and Joseph; fortunately, the Bible makes this quite clear. If we move forward in time from the “annunciation” of Luke 1 to Matthew 1 and St. Joseph’s discovery of Mary’s pregnancy, we find Matthew 1:18 clearly stating Mary and Joseph were still “betrothed.” Yet, when Joseph found out Mary was “with child,” he determined he would “send her away privately” (vs. 19). The Greek verb translated in the RSVCE to send away is apolusai, which means divorce. Why would Joseph have to divorce Mary if they were only engaged?

  Further, the Angel then tells Joseph:

  Do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit . . . When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife (vss. 20-24).

  Notice, Joseph took Mary “his wife,” indicating both St. Matthew and an archangel considered this couple married even though they were said to be “betrothed.” “Betrothed” is obviously much more than “engaged.”

  Moreover, months later we find Joseph and Mary travelling together to Bethlehem to be enrolled as a family according to the decree of Caesar Augustus, just before Jesus would be born. They were obviously married; yet, even then, they were still said to be “betrothed” (see Luke 2:5).

  So let's recap what have we have uncovered. First, Joseph had already taken his espoused “wife” into his home and was caring for her. Second, Scripture reveals him to be her legal husband and to have travelled with Mary to be enrolled with her as a lawfully wedded couple and family. Third, she was called St. Joseph’s “wife” by the angel of the Lord… and yet, they were still referred to as betrothed.

  Referring to Mary and Joseph as “engaged” in the face of all of this evidence would be like calling a modern couple at their wedding reception “engaged” because they have yet to consummate their marriage.

  Once the fact that Mary and Joseph were already married at the time of the annunciation is understood, Mary’s “How shall this happen…” comes more into focus. Think about it: If you were a woman who had just been married (your marriage was “ratified,” but not consummated) and someone at your reception said—or “prophesied”—that you were going to have a baby—that would not really be all that much of a surprise. That is the normal course of events. You marry, consummate the union, and babies come along. You certainly would not ask the question, “Gee, how is this going to happen?”  It is in this context of Mary having been betrothed, then, that her question does not make sense… unless, of course, you understand she had a vow of virginity. Then, it makes perfect sense.

  Error #2: Mr. White claimed, “…it was obvious that the angel was speaking about an immediate conception.” And, closely related to this, Mr. White then claimed Mary asked the question, "How shall this happen...?" because she knew "at that time she could not conceive in a natural manner?"

  Really? It was obvious?

  There is not a single word in this text or anywhere else in Scripture that indicates Mary knew her conception was going to be immediate and via supernatural means. That’s why she asked the question, "How shall this happen...?" It appears she did not know the answer. How could she? Why would it ever enter into her mind? There would be no way apart from a revelation from God that she could have known. And most importantly, according to the text, the angel did not reveal the fact that Mary would conceive immediately and supernaturally until after Mary asked the question.

  But let's suppose Mary was "engaged" as Mr. White claims. There would be even less reason to believe the conception would be immediate and somehow supernatural then there would be if Mary had a vow of virginity (though there’s really no reason to think this in either scenario). An "engaged" woman would have naturally assumed that when she and St. Joseph would later consummate their marriage, they could expect a very special surprise from God. They were going to conceive the Messiah. There would be no reason to think anything else. And there would be no reason to ask the question.

  One final thought: When Mary asked the question, "How shall this happen, since I do not know man," the verb to be (Gr.-estai) is in the future tense. There is nothing here that would indicate she was thinking of the immediate. The future tense here most likely refers to… the future. The question was not how she could conceive immediately. The question was how she could conceive ever. The angel answered that question for her. - When Were Joseph and Mary Married?

Marriage of the Virgin by Raphael

  There are many old paintings and other works of art which portray St. Joseph and the Blessed Virgin Mary standing before a Jewish priest. Some of these are said to be depictions of their betrothal ceremony, while others are of the actual wedding. There are generally few differences in the depictions of the two ceremonies, and most of these works' titles (or, at least the English translations of their titles) indicate that they are of the wedding. - The Wedding of Joseph and Mary

Saint Joseph with the Flowering Rod, by Juspe de Ribera, early 1630s

  Some statues of Joseph depict his staff as topped with flowers, recalling the non-canonical Protoevangelion's account of how Mary's spouse was chosen by collecting the walking sticks of widowers in Palestine, and Joseph's alone bursting into flower, thus identifying him as divinely chosen. The Golden Legend, which derives its account from the much older Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, tells a similar story, although it notes that all marriageable men of the Davidic line and not only widowers were ordered by the High Priest to present their rods at the Temple. Several Eastern Orthodox Nativity icons show Joseph tempted by the Devil (depicted as an old man with furled wings) to break off his betrothal, and how he resists that temptation. There are some paintings with him wearing a Jewish hat. - St. Joseph (Wikipedia)


If your the cathedral parish of your diocese has burned down, is the feast day of the patron saint still a solemnity? I was listening to the latest episode of the Catholic Man Show where they were saying that in your diocese the feast day for the patron saint of your cathedral parish is a solemnity.

He told us that actually is St. Patrick is not a solemnity. It's a Memorial or, but what we are saying is that in New York, because the cathedral is St Patrick's. It is because the cathedral was named after Saint Patrick, the feast of St. Patrick in that diocese, isn't it? Yeah. It is elevated to solemnity just like st. Patrick's day in Sand Springs is elevated from a feast day.

Well, my diocese's cathedral church burned down in 2005 and they haven't rebuilt it yet.  So does that leave us without a patron saint for which to celebrate a solemnity on on or is the Bishop supposed to appoint a "floating holiday" or something like that?

If the local cathedral of your diocese has burned down, is the feast day of the patron saint still a solemnity?
The short answer is yes, since the principle patron saint has not been changed and thus remains intact!
This question deals more with the particular calendar of a diocese than the norms set out by the Universal Calendar of the Catholic Church, although both may be applicable.
The principle patron saint (and not the secondary patron saint(s) if applicable) of the cathedral is also the patron saint of the diocese. The absence or destruction of a cathedral does not change that fact.
The fact that St. Raphael, the Archangel has been established as the principle patron saint of your diocese, He must remain the patron saint of the Diocese of Madison, Wisconsin.

A patron [saint] is one who has been assigned by a venerable tradition, or chosen by election, as a special intercessor with God and the proper advocate of a particular locality, and is honoured by clergy and people with a special form of religious observance. The term "patron", being wider in its meaning than that of "titular", may be applied to a church, a district, a country, or a corporation. The word "titular" is applied only to the patron of a church or institution. Both the one and the other, according to the legislation now in force, must have the rank of a canonized saint. - Patron Saint

This answer is not referring to secondary patron saints of a diocese, but uniquely of thee principle patron saint named in the title of the dioceses’ cathedrals.

Cathedral fire
St. Raphael's undergoing de-construction in 2008
On March 14, 2005, a fire caused extensive damage to St. Raphael's Cathedral, affecting not only those who attended the church, but the entire diocesan community.
The fire caused the roof to collapse into the building, although the walls and steeple remained standing. There was further damage from the water and fears that the refurbished steeple would collapse, although the steeple was found to be stable in the days following the fire. The mosaics sustained smoke and water damage, and the stained glass windows were damaged but still in place.
The cause of the fire was determined to be arson. Forty-one-year-old William J. "Billy" Connell was arrested for setting the fire and charged with burglary, arson, and bail jumping. Connell said that he had broken into the Cathedral using a crowbar, stole a bottle of wine, and then "messed around with some stuff". The fire started in an office/storeroom under the spire, and the crowbar was found in that room. Connell had a history of mental problems, and had previously been in trouble with the law. Connell was sentenced to 15 years in prison to be followed by 15 years of close supervision.

Once a principle patron saint has been established as the patron saint of a country, region, diocese or local parish, the patron saint must remain as such. Thus the feast of such a patron saint would remain as a solemnity.
I have never heard of a parish or even a cathedral being dedicated to another patron saint in a case where the particular building structure had to be replaced with another patron saint. Notre Dame Cathedral will always have Our Lady as the Patron Saint of Paris. Your diocese is not unique.
The patron saint is the principle feast of the whole diocese and not simply just for the cathedral. Thus the Feast of St. Raphael is a Solemnity in your diocese.
To change the patron saint of simple parish churches, Rome must give it approval and the local Catholic population must also approve the measure. This actually happened to a neighbouring parish here in the Archdiocese of Vancouver when the old parish church of St. Anne became the Church of Sts. Joachim & Ann. The old parish church was structurally unsound and a new church was erected. St. Joachim was simply added to the already existing patron saint of St. Ann, the Queen Mother.
By the way both parishioners, the archbishop and Rome approved this new title as it did not take away the existing local patron saint.
St. Raphael is still the patron saint of your diocese, even in the absence of a proper ecclesiastical cathedral dedicated to your diocesan patron saint.

St. Raphael: Great patron of the Diocese of Madison
The cathedrals of the Dubuque Archdiocese and Madison Diocese have the rare distinction of being named after St. Raphael, the archangel. Raphael is also the patron saint of the Diocese of Madison. St. Raphael is one of the three archangels mentioned by name in Scripture and one of the seven who stand before God's throne.
Madison's cathedral
In the early 1840s, Irish immigrants settled into what later became Madison. They were soon organized into a parish named after Raphael, the Archangel.
On August 15, 1842, Mass was offered for the first time by Fr. Martin Kundig. The land that the parish buildings and a later parking lot would be built upon was donated by Governor James Duane Doty, who was a close friend of Fr. Samuel Mazzuchelli.
From 1842 until 1853 the parish did not have a church of its own. Mass was often celebrated in homes and in the state Capitol building.
In 1853 Fr. Francis Etchmann led the construction of the current church building that has been damaged by fire. The cornerstone was laid in 1854. Archbishop John Michael Henni of the Milwaukee Archdiocese dedicated the new building. In 1885 the present bells and spire were added.
On January 9, 1946, Pope Pius XII created the Diocese of Madison from an 11 county area in southern and southwestern Wisconsin. Territory was taken from the Archdiocese of Milwaukee and the Diocese of La Crosse for the new diocese. (I remember when this happened.)
St. Raphael Parish was chosen as the cathedral parish for the new diocese. Msgr. William Mahoney was the proud pastor of St. Raphael.
St. Raphael's patronage
Recently I was delighted to discover that St. Raphael, our patron saint, is also the patron saint of many areas of concern that touch our lives. The archangel is the patron saint of sick persons, travelers, bearers of the good news, happy meetings, the blind, nurses, physicians, and the choice of a good spouse. In addition, St. Raphael is the angel of good health, youth, chaste courtships, and happy marriages.
St. Raphael is also defender of the Church, strong helper in time of need, angel of home life, and guardian of the Christian family. Too, Raphael is the angel of joy, support of the dying, and healer of the sick.
According to the September 6, 2007, issue of the Catholic Herald, the St. Raphael's Pilgrims Marriage Prep Prayer Group has been formed in our diocese. Members of this group commit themselves to some type of daily prayer or sacrifice to support marriage preparation, marriage prep facilitators, and engaged couples in our diocese.
They are also asked to pray a novena to St. Raphael leading up to the weekend. The group has taken St. Raphael as their patron saint not only because he is the patron saint of the Madison Diocese but also because of his role in Sarah and Tobias's marriage in the Book of Tobit.
Providentially, it seems that the Holy Spirit has helped our diocese to wisely choose St. Raphael as its patron saint. As our diocese prepares to rebuild the cathedral and move into the future, let us learn from St. Raphael and ask the archangel's intercession for healing, safe travel, health, support of the ill, dying, family, marriage, and other concerns.

Your patron saint remains a solemnity since a diocese is considered an ecclesiastical territory (place) or area.

Proper solemnities, namely:
a. The solemnity of the principal patron of the place, city or state.
b. The solemnity of the dedication and of the anniversary of the dedication of one’s own church.
c. The solemnity of the title of one’s own church.
d. The solemnity either of the title
or of the founder or of the principal patron of an order or congregation. - Universal Norms on the Liturgical Year and the General Roman Calendar

In my archdiocese, it’s cathedral archiepiscopal see is the Holy Rosary Cathedral, dedicated to the principle diocesan patron saint Our Lady of the Rosary, in Vancouver, B.C.
For further information about this subject matter, the following articles may be considered as interested subject matter:

Particular Churches and Patronal Feasts
What are liturgical honours and privileges for the Patrons of categories of people?


Religious Blessing at a Non-religious Wedding My daughter has decided to have a non-catholic/non-religious wedding.  There does not seem to be any possibility of changing her mind mostly due to her fiance.  Needless to say this has caused some "discomfort" within my family.  While I know that the wedding can not be blessed by the Catholic Church, is there any type of a Catholic blessing or prayer that I can give at the wedding or at the wedding reception?  I am at a loss as to what else I can do.

Let the Lord help you say the loving words: use Scripture

1 Corinthians 13, RSV has only ever moved me -- when I wasn't a baptized Christian and now that I am.  I've been hearing this at weddings since I was about 10.  My younger brother, a non believer, finds these passages poignant and beautiful in tone and intention.  You can't lose.

  If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
  2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
  3 If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.
  4 Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful;
  5 it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not
  irritable or resentful;
  6 it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right.
  7 Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
  8 Love never ends; as for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away.
  9 For our knowledge is imperfect and our prophecy is imperfect;
  10 but when the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away.
  11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became a man, I gave up childish ways.
  12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood.
  13 So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

I have found that if you omit 11 and 12, most people don't notice, since it wanders from the nuptial theme in a different spiritual direction.

Granted, if this is one of the readings at the wedding during the ceremony, then you've got to reach for another bit of inspiration.  I'd recommend looking through the Song of Songs for a passage that moves you.

(And it happened again; as I reviewed this before posting, my eyes got wet with the power of this scripture).


Why did the Western and Eastern churches react to their respective states so differently? In Church History in Plain Language, Bruce Shelley points out a key distinction between Western and Eastern Christianity: how each has related to the State through history.

  Ambrose had hit upon the weapon—the threat of excommunication—which the Western church would soon use again and again to humble princes.  But at the center of the Christian empire, in Constantinople, no bishop ever stepped so far out of line. (104)

Specific examples will hopefully make the distinction clear. First, in the East, when the emperor Leo III forbade the veneration of icons, the Patriarch of Constantinople resigned:

  Leo secured the retirement of the Patriarch of Constantinople and the consecration of a new one who favored his own views. (157)

But in the West, the bishops fought back.  Ambrose excommunicated Theodosius I over a massacre he ordered, while Pope Innocent III was especially prolific in applying excommunication and the interdict (prohibition of rites throughout a geographic area):

  The pope's first weapon in bringing peasants and princes to their knees was the threat of excommunication. [...] Pope Innocent III successfully applied or threatened the interdict eighty-five times against uncooperative princes. (194)

This is surely a huge topic, so let me specify:

What is an overview of the theological differences that led to distinct approaches to unwanted State innovation and overreach in the West and East?

That is:

I'm specifically interested in the use, threats to use, and lack of use of excommunication, the interdict, and similar methods of ecclesiastical discipline, against heads of state and/or their territories.
I'm not interested in historical reasons for the difference.  If historical reasons fully explain it (which I highly doubt), then an expansion on "there were no theological differences" would be a good answer.
I'm basically talking about the Middle Ages here: from Ambrose to the fall of the Byzantine Empire in 1453.  Earlier writers probably had an influence, so discussion of them is fine, but I'm not interested in following this into the Modern era.
I'm speculating that Eastern Christians reacted in writing to the excommunications performed by Ambrose and Innocent (and others), while Western Christians reacted in writing to the Patriarch of Constantinople's resignation.  If so, their criticisms might shed light on the subject.
I'm interested in an overview: a few key points, with a few (sourced) sentences each, would be sufficiently lengthy.

I think one can easily argue that the difference is based on the division the two churches have over papal supremacy

As the West felt it truly had supremacy over the whole church, it alone was aggressive in asserting power. Historically the fact that the Roman church also rose up in a government that was persecuting it, and eventually overthrew it's pagan religion with its own, would also serve to prop up this spirit of assertiveness or aggression.  The eastern church never had that historical and power-centric theology behind them to start opposing or threatening civil powers.


Who might replace Rowan Williams as Archbishop of Canterbury? With the recent announcement that the archbishop of Canterbury will resign, there is bound to at least be a presumed set of replacements, each with a particular vision of the future.

At the most basic level, it would be nice to know who is eligible (Is the Queens list restricted to the English?) and what the procedure for appointing a replacement is.

An amazing answer would call out a few likely candidates and what a future Anglican Communion would look like as a result?

At this point nothing is really very certain, but many sources (Anglican and external) cite John Sentamu (Archbishop of (/"for") York) as the most likely candidate, who is Ugandan by origin (so no, not restricted to "English English", although he is a British Commonwealth citizen).
Re approach - Dr. Williams has been working tirelessly as a conciliatory figure within the Anglican communion, trying to hold various sections together. He is also probably best described as a "moderate", seeking a middle line that is broadly acceptable to most. I don't agree with all of his views, but he has been a reasonable spokesperson.
Dr. Sentamu is not this! He is pretty conservative and non-compromising, with very divisive views (he was one of only 4 bishops who refused to sign the Cambridge Accord, which related to the basic human rights of homosexuals). I actually suspect this will count against him in terms of candidacy, since the wider Anglican Church presumably does not hope to fragment itself internally or publicly. Equally, if elected, I strongly suspect his strong views will be a problem for a large number of the congregation (how to say... the general congregation is notably more moderate than many of the Anglican officials, especially on divisive issues like those Sentamu tends to speek on... perhaps it could be said he speaks for the Church as an office, but not for the congregation).
Alternative candidates I've seen mentioned include Rt Rev Richard Chartres and Rt Rev Nick Baines. My personal suspicion is that Richard Chartres has the most chance of not polarizing things to damaging levels, which may count strongly in his favour. It depends on what the committee (this includes the official process, asked in the question) see as important.
Re eligibility, the above link states:

Are all bishops from within the Anglican Communion eligible for consideration as the next Archbishop of Canterbury?
Since the Archbishop of Canterbury is automatically a member of the House of Lords he must, under the law of the land be a British, Irish or Commonwealth citizen. The person chosen will be someone whom the CNC considers to be best able to fulfil the full range of responsibilities of the role, which, in addition to those concerning the Anglican Communion include being Primate of All England, Metropolitan for the Southern province and Diocesan Bishop of Canterbury. There is, however, no rule which limits the CNC to choosing someone who is currently holding an office in the Church of England. Indeed Archbishop Rowan was serving in another province of the Communion when nominated as Archbishop of Canterbury.
Could the next Archbishop of Canterbury be female if the women bishops legislation passes in July?
The next Archbishop will be male, whatever happens in Synod this July. Even if the legislation secures final approval then there are several further steps that will have to occur before it can come into force. It will be late 2013 or early 2014 before it is possible for women to be appointed as bishops in the Church of England.

So basically: must be male, a Brtish/Irish/Commonwealth citizen, but does not appear to need any specific denomination within the Anglican Communion. It seems that the phrasing of the question is an implicit "and must be a Bishop", but I am not 100% sure (having read the briefing documents, available under "Resources" here) that it wouldn't be possible to promote someone into the diocesan role and thus become Bishop and Archbishop at the same time. That said, even if technically possible, it would seem logistically unlikely.


Will (or "do") people in heaven get to interact with Jesus, independent of massive crowds? When one considers the example Jesus set during his time on earth, and compares it with how individuals often treat each other, the sharp contrast between "how the world works" and "how things should be" becomes visible -- and, at times, rather tiresome.

While we don't know how many people will get to heaven, it seems that it will certainly be "a lot" -- far more than could reasonably expect to have extensive conversations with Christ on a regular basis, for example. And I imagine that the Son of God probably will be (or "is") quite busy with very important matters.

So, will (or "do") individuals, or groups of, say, ten or a dozen people in heaven have an opportunity to interact with Jesus, independent of massive crowds? Is there some equivalent of going fishing with Christ? Or will he be like a celebrity who, under normal circumstances, often finds it necessary to maintain a certain distance, because of the crowds? Will there be something like "town hall meetings," where he stops by different parts of heaven every so often and talks with the local residents? Will those who lived more righteous lives and so "stored up more treasure in heaven" have preferential access to God's time? Or is there some other alternative?

Edit:
Clarification: This question assumes: 1) Christ, in heaven, will / does exist in a resurrected body; 2) Many people will vie for his time, resulting in frequent crowding.

If the assumptions are wrong, what makes them so?
If the assumptions are correct, would Christ somehow still be able to regularly interact with his followers, independent of the crowds?

/Edit

I hope that some responses will include citations of historic authors, exegesis supported by substantial commentators.

According to the christian soterology, not only in heaven you can interact with Christ, but also here, on earth. We know from the lifes of saint Silvan of Athos or saint Seraphim of Sarov that they have seen Christ himself.

Of course there are people who believe that this form of interaction isn't a real interaction with God. It is only some created thing that we can see from the God's will. This view was however condemned by saint Gregory Palamas. So this is at least what Orthodox Christians firmly believe. If you are not Orthodox, you may not accept it.

On the other hand - if we are unable to interact with Christ in heaven, then what kind of heaven it would be? Why would it be desireable for us? Imagining heaven as full of bodily pleasures is rather muslim thing not christian. For a christian the main goal is always Christ and his love.

Two quotations from Bible to support the idea:

And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise (Luke 23, 43)

For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better (Philippians 1, 23)


According to the Catholic Church, are Adam and Eve in heaven? According to this site

  As we have said elsewhere, Adam and Eve are not called saints in
  ordinary reference, historical or scriptural. But they may be called
  saints on their feast day, which is the vigil of Christmas, because we
  know from sound Catholic tradition that they repented of their great
  sin, lived lives of holiness and are now in Heaven.

What Catholic tradition speaks of them to be in heaven?

I’ve read (and since I cannot remember where, there is no reason to put any credence to the following statement:) that Adam and Eve will stay in Purgatory until the final soul is purified.

What Catholic tradition speaks of them to be in heaven?

This is the doctrine known as the Harrowing of Hell. It says that, after his crucifixion, Jesus descended to the realm of the dead, in order to bring forth the righteous who had died into the Resurrection life. "He descended into Hell," as the Apostles' Creed says.

The doctrine is that the righteous were freed by his Resurrection, and "opened heaven's gates for the just who had gone before him" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 637).

There is an ancient homily for Holy Saturday (quoted in the Catechism) that mentions Adam and Eve by name:

  Today a great silence reigns on earth, a great silence and a great stillness. A great silence because the King is asleep. the earth trembled and is still because God has fallen asleep in the flesh and he has raised up all who have slept ever since the world began... He has gone to search for Adam, our first father, as for a lost sheep. Greatly desiring to visit those who live in darkness and in the shadow of death, he has gone to free from sorrow Adam in his bonds and Eve, captive with him - He who is both their God and the son of Eve... "I am your God, who for your sake have become your son... I order you, O sleeper, to awake. I did not create you to be a prisoner in hell. Rise from the dead, for I am the life of the dead."

This is also a theme in religious art. For example, Bartolomeo Bertejo's painting Christ leads the patriarchs from Hell to Paradise (downloaded from Wikimedia Commons).


Are Catholics allowed to leave marriage in order to become a monk or nun? In the catholic doctrine, is it allowed to leave a marriage and become a monk or nun? Are there any magisterial documents that treat this topic?

Edit: Are there any options e.g. for a specific application of the Pauline privilege? What about the cases like Nicholas of Flüe?

From Roman Cholij's Priestly celibacy in patristics and in the history of the Church:

Although perhaps strange to our own modern ways of thinking, absolute marital continence was far from unknown or unesteemed in patristic times. Tertullian, himself a married man, informs us in his Catholic period, of lay people who practise continence within marriage «pro cupiditate regni coelestis».11 So do Jerome and Augustine in the following century.12 The rapid growth of monasticism and an attraction to the ascetic life led many couples to renounce their intimacy and to enter a monastery13 or to live in continence within more domestic settings. Church authorities had to intervene decisively when the enthusiasm for continence was deemed excessive and tainted with heretical motives, but at the same time praising those who lived the life of continence for the right motives.14 Four centuries later the Second Nicene Council (787) would still endorse the possibility of monastic vocations for the married.15

The relevant part from the Second Nicene Council (787), Canon 20, reads:

If there are persons who wish to renounce the world and follow the monastic life along with their relatives, the men should go off to a male monastery and their wives enter a female monastery, for God is surely pleased with this.

It would seem 1983 Can. 643 §1.2/ ("The following are admitted to the novitiate invalidly:…a spouse, while the marriage continues to exist;") or the corresponding 1917 Can. 542 1.° [d] abrogate the Second Nicene Council (787), Canon 20; but, as the commentary on the 1983 Code says,

if a couple mutually agrees to renounce marital rights and relationships in order to seek admission to religious institutes, a dispensation from the Holy See must be sought.

A famous recent example of a married couple separating—with the pope's permission, the husband becoming a priest, the wife becoming a nun, and their biological children going to boarding school—is that of Mother Cornelia Connelly (1809-1879), foundress of the Society of the Holy Child Jesus, a sort of modern-day St. Rita of Cascia. See The Life of Cornelia Connelly (1922) or this video documentary on her.

For a history on this, see Spiritual Marriage: Sexual Abstinence in Medieval Wedlock.
Also, pp. 2-3 of Validity of Virginal Marriage by John Cuthbert Ford, S.J., contains a list of married virgin saints.


Why did God make garments of skin for Adam and Eve when they had already made clothing for themselves? Immediately after Adam and Eve sinned, we are told that they made clothing for themselves.

  Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.  Genesis 3:7 ESV

However, after God comes into the garden, He also makes clothing for them.

  And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them.  Genesis 3:21 ESV

Why does God do this when Adam and Eve were already clothed?  What was wrong with the clothing they already had, and what was right about the clothing that God made for them?

When Adam and Eve sinned in the garden, God gave them skins to cover up with (Genesis 3:21). To get those skins, some animal had to die. In other words, God sacrificed an animal to cover their sin1. From the beginning, God has declared the payment for sin is death, and so blood must be shed to cover sin:

Leviticus 17:11: “For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.”
Hebrews 9:22: “In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.”

Early in the Old Testament God introduced this idea of one innocent being shedding its blood in place of the sinner’s.
However the solution of sacrificing bulls and goats and lambs for the sins of each person’s sin was a temporary fix. The next year, another animal would have to be sacrificed for the same person. A more permanent solution was needed, as noted in Hebrews 10:4

For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

That meant a human was needed to die for humans’ sin. But all humans are sinful, so another sin-filled person dying for us just wouldn’t work. A human without sin was needed.
But ever since Adam, every human born is sin-filled, so how could a sinless man happen? The only way was if God did it Himself.
God Himself became a man: Jesus means “the LORD saves” and died for us in our place. Therefore, anyone who accepts the sacrifice of Jesus on his or her behalf is covered by his blood and is saved.
1An explanation of the idea that God provided the skins by killing the first animals to powerfully show Adam and Eve the result of their sin, and the idea that this typified the death of Christ can be found in Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Holy Bible.


What does the Bible verse saying "don't boil a goat in its mother's milk" mean? Does it mean don't use the word of God (milk meat and honey) condemning the little ones just learning the word of Christ to the point. The child rejects even hearing about God?

One of several Jewish interpretations of this verse may be found here: http://thetorah.com/meat-and-milk-origins-in-the-text/

The one that appeals to me is that it was misinterpreted and originally meant that you should not wait until a young goat has been weaned before bringing it for sacrifice of first fruits.

Another idea with no evidential support is that it is forbidding a pagan practice common at that time.


Does Stained Glass art hold any special meaning for Catholics? We see beautiful Catholic buildings adorned with multiple works of stained glass art; is this for any particular reason other than the fact that stained glass art looks nice?

Does Stained Glass art hold any special meaning for Catholics?
The short answer is yes.
For centuries, stained glass art in church windows, was known as the Poor Man’s Bible

The term Poor Man's Bible has come into use in modern times to describe works of art within churches and cathedrals which either individually or collectively have been created to illustrate the teachings of the Bible for a largely illiterate population. These artworks may take the form of carvings, paintings, mosaics or stained-glass windows. In some churches a single artwork, such as a stained-glass window has the role of Poor Man's Bible while in others, the entire church is decorated with a complex biblical narrative that unites in a single scheme.
The Biblia pauperum
The term Poor Man's Bible is not to be confused with the so-called Biblia pauperum, which are biblical picture books, either in illuminated manuscript or printed "block-book" form. The illuminated Biblia Pauperum, despite the name given in the 1930s by German scholars, were much too expensive to have been owned by the poor, although the printed versions were much cheaper and many were probably shown to the poor for instruction.
But despite the fact that the books, at least in their earlier manuscript versions, were created for the rich, while the carvings and windows of a great church provided free entertainment and instruction to all who entered the doors, there were strong points of similarity in both subject matter and iconography.
Reproduction of motifs
In a world before the printed book, fidelity to the original in transcribing of books by hand was the only thing that maintained the Bible and other works of literature for posterity. Along with the written words of the document were often transcribed commentaries and illustrations. While talented illuminators added their own style and embellishments, the form of many pictures remained the same, and different scenes or motifs were repeated many times and in different media.
There is, for example a particular motif of several sheep, one of which has a foot raised to scratch its ear, which occurs in Italy in the 13th and 14th centuries in manuscript illumination, wall paintings and carved stone panels. A motif of paired flying winged figures which is seen on pagan Roman sarcophagi passed into Christian art as a very commonly used portrayal of angels. The reproduction of figures from manuscripts was particularly common in stained glass windows with various Biblia Pauperum being frequent sources.


What percentage of US Christians are Dispensationalists? What percentage of US Christians are dispensationalists?  I think it has a serious impact on American policy in the Middle East.

  Dispensationalism is a religious interpretive system and metanarrative
  for the Bible. It considers Biblical history as divided by God into
  dispensations, defined periods or ages to which God has allotted
  distinctive administrative principles. Source

I can't find any surveys that asked Americans about dispensational belief directly. Dispensational theology is mainstream in evangelical Protestant circles, though being an evangelical doesn't necessarily mean one believes in premillenial dispensationalism. Many people probably do not have fixed theological positions, and cannot fairly be said either to believe or disbelieve dispensationalist theories. There are also theologically conservative Protestant churches that might not be called "evangelical" that hold to dispensationalism.  I would guess that the number of evangelicals in the US provides an upper bound on the number of dispensationalists. According to the Pew Research Center, as of 2014 about 25% of Americans are evangelical Protestants.

More directly relevant to the reasoning behind the question, a Pew Research Center study from 2003 reports that 36% of Americans (of any religion) say that Israel fulfills Biblical prophecies about the Second Coming. I don't see why you would have to believe in dispensational eschatology to believe that, though. For example, 25% of Catholics said they believed Israel fulfills Biblical prophecies, and official Catholic doctrine is not dispensationalist. Of course, ordinary Catholics may not conform to official doctrine, and I'm pretty sure the official Catholic doctrine is that the state of Israel has no religious significance.

That study also reports that 63% of self-identified evangelicals believe Israel fulfills Biblical prophecies. Again, not all of them are necessarily dispensationalists. One could also, in theory, be a dispensationalist and not think the current state of Israel is the fulfillment of prophecy, but the dominant dispensationalist view says it is. If we assume that nearly all evangelicals who think Israel fulfills prophecy are dispensationalists, and that those who think it doesn't are not, and we assume that 63% of evangelicals still think Israel fulfills Biblical prophecy in 2014, then we might take 63% of 25% = 16% of Americans as a lower bound on the number of dispensationalists.  Since about 80% of Americans are Christian, that would be about 20% of Christians. But I've made some pretty suspect assumptions here. My guess is that between 15% and 25% of Americans are not not dispensationalists; that is, their beliefs are basically consistent with dispensationalism, even if they don't have articulated eschatological beliefs.

One addendum: the 80% of Americans who are Christians excludes people of no religion, who mostly come from Christian families.  Only about 5% of Americans identify with a non-Christian religion.


How does a Christian justify free thinking? What types of Christianity promote free thinking or thinking for yourself?

The more I go to church, the more I feel guilty for free thinking and feel I should be passive to let the Holy Spirit guide me (but I find it is the will of other men that becomes bigger).

So what does Christianity say about free thinking?
How and when are we not supposed to think freely?

EDIT
What if after deep prayer and meditation and critical thinking, my interpretation of a Biblical concept is different than the logical understanding of it, held by the majority \?

Thinking is actually commendable and encouraged for Christians.

In Thessalonica, Paul's witness is recorded as follows:

And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3  explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.”  Acts 17:2-3

So, Paul's method was to reason and logically demonstrate the truthfulness of the Gospel.

After Thessalonica Paul traveled to Berea, who were commended by Luke as follows:

  Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they
  received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily
  to see if these things were so.  Acts 17:11 ESV

The Bereans were commended for doing their research, considering what Paul was saying, and searching the Scriptures to verify the truthfulness of Paul's claims.  So, thinking was commended.

Throughout Scripture, God asks us to think, to consider, to contemplate.  Proverbs is full of exhortations to the many who makes wise decisions.  I have heard that the book of Romans apparently used to be used in Law Schools in America to demonstrate how to construct a logical argument.

Christianity proclaims itself as a logical, rational, convincing truth.  It invites the skeptic, the critic, and the scoffer to ponder.  Many of such people have done so and come to faith in Christ, notably Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel, among many others.


How can things considered bad when done by humans become good when God does them? The following is one of the central questions concerning moral values in Christianity.

I am referring to an answer Caleb gave earlier on here. There he says, and I believe this is the standard stance Christianity holds:

  God is good, 100% pure good. He is, in fact, the only standard of what
  good is; we measure whether something is good or not by comparing it
  to the character and decrees of God.

In the comments he writes (bold style added by me):

  because he IS the standard (rather than being measured against it)
  there are certain things that are good for God but sin for men.

My question is: How can this be the case?

Even if God sees the big picture and has knowledge of all the ramifications of all potential actions the point where you can call something good ends when real suffering by sentient human beings over extended periods of time is involved.

Just as one example see the following citation about things to come when Jesus will return to us from Revelation 9:1-5:

  Revelation 9:5 (NIV)
  They were not allowed to kill them but only to torture them for five
  months. And the agony they suffered was like that of the sting of a
  scorpion when it strikes.

By all moral standards I have ever heard of this deed alone (extensive torturing of people) would be considered an outrageous atrocity, so the direct opposite of good. How can something like this be considered good when done by God?

First of all, my original comment about some things being sin for men that are good for God was specifically linked to this answer in which I outline how I think men are required to worship God and it would be sinful for them to worship themselves, but God demands that all things be focused on himself. I did not at all mean to imply that God is somehow allowed to do things which are inherently evil (or unjust).

So how DOES one reconcile the apparent cruel state of men on earth now with a good God? Forgive me the liberty of taking a clip out of context from your question:

  the point where you can call something good ends when real suffering by sentient human beings over extended periods of time is involved

The problem I see is that you are approaching this from the assumption that sentient human beings are inherently good and have a right to a comfortable existence.

Christianity asserts the opposite, that we are inherently bad and have no right to anything less than eternal damnation, destruction, torture, you name it. We as humans by nature fall under the wrath of God, not the love of God, because we have chosen to hate God.

  Romans 3:9b-12 (ESV)
  For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, 10 as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.”

Since God is good and hates evil, and evil hates good and men hate God, God hates men. They are therefore objects of his wrath. The systematic punishment of evil is GOOD.

  Romans 2:8 (ESV)
  but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury.

If what humans (all of them) deserve is an outpouring of wrath (hell), then the troubled existence with mixed good and bad we experience here on earth is really an undeserved grace that overflows from an abundantly good God, not the result of divine injustice.

  Matthew 5:45b (ESV)
  For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.

The real problem with God being unjust is this: that with all men being evil ANY of them should be justified. That God would take beings who hated good and choose to love them rather than hate them is an unfathomable injustice. Rather than complaining about the troubles of this world we should be marveling at how a righteous and just God could POSSIBLY justify the unrighteous.*

  Romans 3:26 (ESV)
  It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

* This would make a good next question.


How do Mormons understand Revelation 22:3? Revelation 22:3 in the King James Version:

  3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:

To me this appears to indicate Jesus and God are one, and not separate beings, for the sake of the same throne and the singular pronouns his and him. How do Mormons understand this verse?

Revelation 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

This verse shows that the throne belongs to Jesus Christ along with his father. We interpret it through this verse. Kind of a short answer but it gets the point accross.


Is it possible to get a divorce (not an annulment) in the Catholic Church? There is a common misconception that an annulment is a Catholic version of a divorce (see this question). However, this has made me wonder: is it is possible to get a divorce within the Catholic church, rather than an annulment? To put it another way, is it possible for a marriage in the Catholic Church to end before death in a way other than annulment?

Valid, consummated marriages of the baptized are indissoluble.

Can.  1141 A marriage that is ratum et consummatum (ratified and consummated*) can be dissolved by no human power and by no cause, except death.
*This means "the spouses have performed between themselves in a human fashion a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring, to which marriage is ordered by its nature and by which the spouses become one flesh." (Can. 1061 §1).

Non-consummated marriages of the baptized can be dissolved.
One way a valid (ratified or ratum) marriage between two baptized persons or between a baptized and non-baptized person can be dissolved is if it is non-consummated (ratum et non consummatum) and

one makes a solemn religious profession

or

one or both parties seek a dispensation from the Apostolic See (Petrine privilege).

See: Can. 1142
Marriages of the unbaptized can be dissolved if a spouse converts.
Legitimate marriage of the unbaptized, even if consummated, can be dissolved in favor of the faith by the Pauline privilege, after 1 Cor. 7:15:

But if the unbeliever depart, let him depart. For a brother or sister is not under servitude [i.e., of the marriage bond] in such cases. But God hath called us in peace.

This can occur, for example, when one spouse converts to Catholicism but the other spouse "does not wish to cohabit with the baptized party or to cohabit peacefully without affront to the Creator" (Can. 1143 §2).


Did Peter fully enter the tomb? In Luke 24:12 it states that Peter stooped down to look through into the tomb, but omits any mention of hims actually going into the sepulchre itself. Only after he briefly stoops down does he run away from the location.

John 20:3–6 contrasts this by clearly saying that Peter fully entered the tomb and did not just stoop down to see from afar.

How would one reconcile these events?

Commentators who consider the Bible inerrant and attempt to resolve the apparent discrepancy agree that Luke is simply omitting details that John includes.  For example, James Burton Coffman writes:

  Here Luke abbreviated the whole incident so fully presented in John 20:1-9, omitting not only John's participation in it, but also, the fact of Peter's having actually entered the tomb. (source)

Adam Clarke says:

  This circumstance is related still more particularly by John, John 20:5-7. (source)

And, John Gill, commenting on the phrase "and went into the sepulchre" in John, sees no discrepancy:

  though not without first stooping down, as John did; see Luke 24:12. (source)


What kind of Christianity supports Zionism? I'm writing an essay about Christian Zionism, and I'm a bit unclear on the end-times beliefs of pre-millennialism and post-millennialism. I understand the basic timelines of both, but where does Jewish emigration to Israel fit in? At what point (and in which belief system) are Jews either supposed to convert to Christianity or be ruled by a tyrant?

Ellis Skolfield, a historicist (which is closer to Preterist than to Pre-Mil Dispensationalism) builds his entire framework for understanding Daniel and Revelation upon a timeline that has two of Daniel's prophesies pointing to the re-establishment of Israel in 1948 and the recapture of Jerusalem in 1967, respectively.

Skolfield's interpretation of the "two witnesses" of Revelation is that one witness is the Christian church and the second witness is the faithful among Israel.

Thus to Skolfield, himself a Christian of Jewish ancestry, the modern nation of Israel is a direct fulfillment of prophecy and true inheritor of the promises that God made to ancient Israel.

Skolfield believes that the millenium and the tribulation occur at the same time. He argues that chillioi is an indefinite plural, so the prophecies about the Millenial kingdom should apply to a period of time that is millenia (plural), not millenium (singular). Thus as soon as Jesus ascended into Heaven, his millenial kingdom began. Likewise, as soon as the Apostle's prophesied the first persecution, the Tribulation began, and continues until today. That also means that the unbinding of Satan has already occurred.

Given that Israel was reborn, Skolfield believes that all prophesies about the end times have been fulfilled, except Christ's return, which can therefore be at any time. He said that many scriptures refer to the "Last Trumpet". He believes that they all refer to the same event, so that the final end of the tribulation and Christ's return and the rapture and the Seventh Trumpet of Revelation all describe the same event. There will not be two big battles, one at the beginning of the millenium and one at the end. There will only be one. The misinterpretation that he claims to correct is that Revelation presents a repetitive, telescoping timeline, which keeps backing up and going over the same time period repeatedly, giving different details. The structure of Revelation has confused people into thinking that there are two battles and a longer period of time than his interpretation requires for the time of the end.


In Theistic Evolution, when did the alleged evolutionary animal/ape/man become accountable for his sins? One answer to this previous question asks,

  One of the problems I have with theistic evolution is: when did this alleged evolutinary animal/ape/man become accountable for his sins? [sic]

It would seem that this is a fundamental problem with TE - it denies the legitimacy of Adam's Fall as being representative for the entire human race (as Paul explains in Romans 5).

How does TE understand\explain awareness of and responsibility for sin?

First, a disclaimer: Theistic evolution (TE) is neither a theological system nor an alternative to mainstream evolutionary science. TE is an awkward label applied to people who accept evolutionary theory and also believe in God. Those who claim this label are not a unified group. The following is my own understanding, which is still evolving.

The early chapters of Genesis, taken as historical narrative, are impossible to reconcile with mainstream evolutionary biology. To accept evolution as fact is to deny Adam and Eve as history.

On the other hand, the typology of Adam and Eve does not change if they are not historical figures. If the story of Adam and Eve is allegory, then it is an allegory explaining the beginnings of God's relationship with created beings.

Put into a framework of hominid evolution, Adam and Eve represent the first beings capable of living in relationship with God. This is represented by God's breathing the "breath of life" (Genesis 2:7) into them.

The eating of the forbidden fruit that "opened their eyes" (Genesis 3:7) is a poetic reference to the awakening that transformed amoral hominids into moral agents, capable of distinguishing right from wrong.

And I don't think it's much of a stretch to suggest that this moral awakening grew directly out of an experience (or multiple experiences) of realizing the consequences of wrong actions. That's one of the lessons of Adam and Eve: actions have consequences.

So, no TE does not necessarily deny Adam's fall as being representative of the entire human race. In fact, from a TE perspective we could say Adam's fall is nothing other than representative of the entire human race.

And in answer to the question in the title, the "alleged evolutinary animal/ape/man" became accountable for his sins when he first became aware that he was acting against the will of God.


For Jehovah's Witnesses, what are the ingredients to the bread and the wine? I am wondering what ingredients do the Jehovah's Witnesses use in the bread and the wine. I talked to one of my friends who is a active member of the Jehovah's Witness religion but was not satisfied with her answer.

To find a proper answer to this good question, have a look at their 12/15 2013 Watchtower magazine. The paragraphs 5-7, under the subtitle 'The Emblems' should interest you.

As a summary, the bread was made from wheat flour and water, without any leaven or seasoning, such as salt, being added. Because it was unleavened, it would not have risen.

[UPDATE] They recently edited a video on how to make the bread : How to Make Memorial Bread

For the wine, as there was no need for augmenting or fortifying the value of Jesus’ blood, the wine used is not a type fortified with brandy or spices. Plain red wine should be used, a homemade wine or a commercial wine, such as Beaujolais, Burgundy, or Chianti.


Is the resolution not to sin again a must for absolution? A Catholic is supposed to resolve not to sin again and also to express his/her resolution at the time of confession in order to seek absolution from sins already committed by him/her. I wish to know if there is anything in the scriptures which makes the resolution a pre-requirement for seeking absolution from sins .

As explained here, three things are part of the matter  of the Sacrament (the 'stuff,' or that which is involved and necessary—such as water, in baptism):

Confession (of sins)

Contrition (sorrow for sin)

Satisfaction (making reparation to God by doing the opposite of indulging in sin, which is to do penance)

Purpose of amendment (intention not to commit the same sin as best you can, honestly, truthfully), however, is related intrinsically to contrition. Because you are not sorry if you both say you are sorry and intend, but don't outwardly make it known, that you in fact plan to do the same in the future!
That is, to make a confession without purpose of amendment (resolution not to sin) is to make an invalid confession, and you cannot recieve the grace given in the Sacrament of Confession.
Refusing to or not having the intention to amend your life and not fall into the same sin with all your strength, is actually the sin of presumption ('God will definitely forgive me if I sin again,' i.e. 'God owes me forgiveness').
And you cannot replace part of the matter for the Sacrament with a sin!
This passage from Sirach (or, Ecclesiasticus) deals with this:

Sirach 5:1-10
Set not thy heart upon unjust possessions,1 and say not: I have enough to live on: for it shall be of no service in the time of vengeance and darkness. Follow not in thy strength the desires of thy heart: And say not: How mighty am I? and who shall bring me under for my deeds? for God will surely take revenge. Say not: I have sinned, and what harm hath befallen me? for the most High is a patient rewarder. Be not without fear about sin forgiven, and add not sin upon sin: And say not: The mercy of the Lord is great, he will have mercy on the multitude of my sins. For mercy and wrath quickly come from him, and his wrath looketh upon sinners. Delay not to be converted to the Lord, and defer it not from day to day. For his wrath shall come on a sudden, and in the time of vengeance he will destroy thee. Be not anxious for goods unjustly gotten:1 for they shall not profit thee in the day of calamity and revenge.

1 or in the case of habit of sin, illicit pleasures, to which you have no right: the pleasure which comes with sinning
cf. Mt 24:42-51; Luke 12:46; Revelation 22:12.
Similarly, it is gravely disrespectful to abuse the Sacrament of Confession:

Hebrews 10:29
How much more, do you think he deserveth worse punishments, who hath
trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath esteemed the blood of the
testament unclean, by which he was sanctified, and hath offered an
affront to the Spirit of grace?

See also 2 Peter 2:20-22, as noted by the commenter below.


Have there been any cases of Stigmata outside of Catholicism? Have there been any cases of the Stigmata appearing to someone who is outside of Catholicism, yet still a member of Christianity? Such as a member of a Protestant denomination or sect of Eastern or Coptic Orthodoxy?

The only non-Catholic Christian I have heard who MAY have received the stigmata was St. Gregory Palamas who was Eastern Orthodox. This is HIGHLY disputed. The English translation of the Lenten Synaxarion APPEARS to say he was "adorned with the wounds of Christ" (Lenten Synaxarion - Sunday of St. Gregory Palamas)

However, no Eastern Orthodox authority interprets it this way. However, Byzantine Catholics do.


Was man judged at the cross along with Satan and the rebellious Angels? In Matthew 5:22 Jesus says that anyone who calls another a fool will be in danger of Hell fire
Matthew 5:22  KJV

But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger
of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council:
but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

and in the Revelation Chapter 20:14 it tells us that Death and Hell will be thrown into the lake of fire:
Revelation 20:14  KJV

And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

Also in the story about Lazarus and the rich man:
Luk 16:22 through 24  KJV

22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
23  And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24  And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

Apparently some go to Hell when they die and are tortured by the heat (fire) and at the Great White Throne judgment are then thrown into the lake of fire.
Revelation 20:15  KJV

And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Revelation chapter says nothing about either Satan, His minions being judged only thrown into the lake of fire.
It does say that the dead are judged but only for their works:
Rev 20:12 and 13  KJV

12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13  And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

Does it seem possible that unbelief is judged along with Satan and his minions at the Cross, and the Great White Throne judgment is for what wrongs they have done on Earth?

Mankind was not judged at the cross.  Rather, judgement began - and per that, for the household of God, not mankind en masse.

As for Satan, he's been judged, Jn 16:11.  But, the sentence has yet to be carried out, Rev 20:2.  He will get a temporary brief from that incarceration, Rev 20:7.  Then, have a permanent sentence carried out, Rev 20:10.

Back to mankind, judgement has now begun with the household of God, 1 Pt 4:17.  The scripture's "household of God" can be loosely interpreted as "Christians" today.  However, keep in mind mainstream religion is not a spiritual body, rather an institution of man, e.g. Matt 13:24-30, I Cor 10:5-6, Rev 17 and more.

The rest of mankind that is not "the household of God" has not entered into judgment, Rev 20:5.  They will enter into judgement later, Rev 20:12.

The reference you make to Luke 16:22-24 does not support the poor man died then went to heaven immediately.  To make that assertion, one would have to throw out the explicit references in scripture that is not the case, e.g. Heb 11:39-40, Jn 6:44, 54, I Cor 15:51-52.

(Many also use Lk 23:43 in the same context.  There is no punctuation in the original Greek.  We know the criminal on the cross is not in heaven per the scriptures above, among many, many more).

So, one one's dying and going to heaven, or hell, upon the first death.  That's explicitly not the case in scripture.  (And, popularity of a belief makes it no more true, scripture is the final authority).

So, in conclusion: judgement began - for a part of mankind, the "household of God" with the cross.  The rest of mankind enters into judgement later.  Satan is on his own "judgement plan" with God.  (And, there's a fourth category, 1 Cor 6:3 concerning the judgement of angels).


Is there any historical evidence for the practice of "foot washing" during the first centuries of Christianity? Is there any historical evidence for the practice of “foot washing” during the first centuries of Christianity?
My question to the practice of foot washing based on John 13:

John 13:12-17 (New International Version)
12 When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. “Do you understand what I have done for you?” he asked them. 13 “You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am. 14 Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. 15 I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. 16 Very truly I tell you, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. 17 Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them.

From the Anabaptist network comes the following:

Tertullian (145-220) of North Africa in his De Corona is the first Church Father to indicate that footwashing was practiced in his time, but he gives no clue as to by whom or how. Ambrose of Milan (340-97) states that it was not the practice of the Roman Church, but endorses it as a symbol of sanctification. Augustine mentions it as being rejected by some. Knight (p. 816) says flatly that footwashing always remained ‘a purely local peculiarity, introduced at an early date into some parts of the Catholic Church, but never universal’. Among the monks in particular, the hospitality custom of footwashing was widely practiced, and often in the name of Christ, but not as a universal ordinance of the church. For the monks the observance was often intended to express humility. St. Benedict’s Rule (529) for the Benedictine Order prescribed hospitality footwashing in addition to a communal footwashing for humility.

R.L. Vaughn's monograph on the history of the practice of footwashing among Baptists credits John Christopher Thomas's work Footwashing in John 13 and the Johannine Community for adding substantially to the body of knowledge regarding the practice of footwashing in the church. Vaughn says,

Thomas finds few very early references, though he makes a good argument on pp. 146-47 that the absence of such references is not proof that it was not practiced. He finds a possible allusion to feet washing in the Martyrdom of Polycarp , written in 156. He cites it according to the translation of C. C. Richardson in Early  Christian  Fathers  (p. 154 New York: MacMillan Press, 1970).

Thomas includes an excerpt from Richardson's translation of Martyrdom:

“And  when  the  funeral  pile  was  ready,  Polycarp,  laying  aside  all  his  garments,  and loosing his girdle, sought also to take off his sandals,--a thing he was not accustomed to do, inasmuch as every one of the faithful was always eager who should first touch his skin.” – 13:2 (Roberts-Donaldson Translation) http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/martyrdo
mpolycarp-roberts.html.

Thomas continues,

This  above  is  definitely  not  a  clear  reference.  Thomas  points  to  the  possibility  of  an allusion  to  feetwashing  based  on  the description  of laying  aside  of  garments,  the mention  of  not  removing  the  shoes  in  relation  to  touching  his  skin,  that apsetai
(translated  touch)  in  some  contexts  means  to  wash, and  tradition  of  Polycarp's connection with the Apostle John.

Thomas (passim) then quotes extensively from The  Mennonite  Encyclopedia,  Vol.  2,  Bender,  Gingerich,  Krahn, Smith, editors, Scottdale, PA: Mennonite Publishing
House, 1956, p. 348, and in short, cites the following church fathers and Post-Nicene writers who in their various writings at least mention the practice of footwashing in the Christian church:

Turtullian (155-230)

Origen (203-250)

Ambrose (340-397)

St. John Chyrsostom (347-407)

Augustine (354-430)

John Cassian (360-435)

Pachomias (writing in ca. 404)

Casesarius of Arles (ca. 470-542)

In conclusion, while footwashing is mentioned as being in existence from the time of the apostles, on, including Paul's reference to widows who washed the saints' feet (1 Timothy 5:10), the exact nature and practice of footwashing in both social and eccelsiastical settings is imprecise at best.
Nevertheless, footwashing in an ecclesiastical setting was practiced (and still is) by such Christian groups as the Anabaptists and later the Menonnites. Other Christian denominations to this very day may engage in footwashing from time to time, not as an ordinance but as a demonstration of humility and servant-leadership.
My own local congregation within the C & M A denomination enacts the footwashing paradigm periodically, especially when new elders are installed as church leaders and under-shepherds. This meaningful ritual signifies that true elders have the privilege of serving their fellow parishioners humbly, much as the Lord himself who "came not to be served, but to serve." The primary difference in their humility: only the Lord Jesus was worthy to give "his life as a ransom for [the sins of] many."


Did the events of Good Friday take place during winter? Peter went to a camp fire when Jesus was being crucified, but we celebrate Good Friday in the spring/early summer. That Peter required a camp fire makes me doubt that the events happened at the time of year we celebrate them. Did they take place during winter?

Christ died during Passover, which is around Spring in Israel, which is in the Northern Hemisphere. I think it's still cold early in the morning during that time, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passover#Date_and_duration


What is the case against Gore Vidal's view that St. Paul "invented Christianity"? I was watching Gore Vidal being interviewed for CSpan's In Depth series and his book Live from Golgotha was being discussed. He claims that St. Paul "invented" Christianity. That Jesus came for the Jews only, but that St. Paul wanted to internationalize the appeal for Jesus and so twisted the truth. What are some arguments against this claim?

The case is vast, and, quite literally, fills volumes. I'm currently reading New Testament People God Volume 1: Christian Origins And The Question Of God, for example, which addresses this topic at length.

There are far too many arguments against this claim than can be addressed here (obviously), but some key points I have so far taken from the book mentioned above include:

We know that Christianity was a significant factor by the early second century, because we have strong evidence of persecution of Christians. The Roman empire, and various regions, had, to varying degrees, official policies relating to (and often forbidding) Christianity.
This means that Christianity had been around long enough to grow to a noticeable size. Even assuming an early date for the origin of Christianity (say immediately after Christ's death), this is an astonishing accomplishment for such a new religion in a world where new religions, new gods, and new practices, were a dime a dozen.  Pushing back a Christian genesis date makes this only that much more astonishing--not less (as most advocates of such a theory would have us believe)
An honest study of the content of the textual evidence (particularly, but not limited to the gospels and the rest of the New Testament) shows a progression in literary style as well as theology that would have taken many years to develop, and could not have been a "quick invention" by a single person let, alone by even a single generation.


What Biblical support is there for a non-Churched Christianity? I'm interested in people who say "I'm a Christian, but I don't go to church."

I understand the sentiment - it really fits in well with the "spiritual, but not religious" Zeitgeist, and it seems to often coincide with a dislike of "hypocrites in the church." Jesus clearly inveighed vehemently against the Pharisees and all who would put on a show, but I'm trying to figure out what Jesus or any of the Biblical writers would have thought of the person who doesn't show up at all.

In making the case against a non-churched Christianity, I would point to:

"Wherever two or more are gathered in my name"
The fact that the vast majority of the NT is addressed to churches and not inviduals
The fact that the OT seems to also simply assume corporate worship.

I could keep going on, but I'm interested in understanding the opposite view.  What scriptural or traditional evidence could one muster to make the case for an idiosyncratic Christianity?  (Etymologically, the word "idiot" actually comes from "one who refuses to join the greater body") In other words, how would the idiosyncratic believer claim he's a Christian?

None. Every time the Bible presents the belivers it presents them in a context of a group. The biblical christian (believer in the Bible) always get together in houses, underground. Here are a few passages tackling this subject:

Romans 12.3-8
1 Corianthians 12.12-31
1 Peter 2.4-5
Heb 10.25

The argument advanced by the non-church goer is all over the place, but not in the Bible.

They say that Jesus never built a Church or been to one (But Jesus was in the synagogue).
The church was to protect and help the member in hostile time like the beginning.
There are hypocrites in the church.
The church does not serve me ...


Did the Council of Trent define rules for encasing Relics? I was wondering if the Council of Trent laid out the rubrics for encasing 1st class relics? The info is important to because I have a very old locket with possible relics and the remnants of a wax seal, but I've been advised the locket would not have been an approved container for it.

Are there any specific rules regarding the type of enclosure that is needed for housing relics? If so, has that changed through the years? I've looked extensively but haven't been able to find many details about it. Any info would be greatly appreciated.

Edit to add pictures of the locket.

Adding the group of relics(?) that were fused on top of the Jesuit prayer. It appears to have the remnants of a wax seal in each of the corners.

Close up of the seal remnants in the top right corner.

Council of Trent and rubrics

A word search of the English version of the Proceedings of the Council of Trent did not, when the term relic shows up, address that detail.  There may have been other supplemental guidance offered under various papal bulls or decrees, but in the Council of Trent's issued declarations that detail is not found.

The prose declarations made on pages 233-237 address the veneration of saints and various prohibitions in unverified new relics, or unseemly depictions of saints, but not a rubric on how a relic is to be packaged.  The Council did rule that relics required review and authentication by the episcopal authority in order to be permitted for public veneration.

While another council may have included such rubrics on reliquaries, the Council of Trent appears not to have done so.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on reliquaries:

  Lastly it will be sufficient to point out that relics have at all
  times been kept in simple caskets or boxes, varying indefinitely in
  size, material, and ornamentation. In more modern times these are
  invariably secured by a seal, and the contents indicated in a formal
  episcopal act of authentication, without which it is not Lawful to
  expose the relics for public veneration. The silver box containing the
  head of St. Agnes, recently brought to light in the treasury of the
  Sancta Sanctorum, still preserved the seal of some cardinal deacon
  affixed to it apparently at the end of the thirteenth century.

Of the various documents available regarding relics and reliquaries, the consistent requirement is that any relic (to be a relic as opposed to something else) must be accompanied by an episcopal documentation of authenticity.  While that isn't a matter of "packaging" or handling, it looks like a hard requirement.

  SACRED RELICS
  The Collectio Rerum Liturgicarum of Rev. Joseph Wuest, C.SS.R., Latin - 1889
  Matters Liturgical by Rev. Thomas Mullaney, C.SS.R., English translation - 1925

  Authenticity of Relics. Only those relics can be honored with a public cult in churches, even though exempt, which are certified as
  genuine in an authentic document of a Cardinal, a local Ordinary, or
  an ecclesiastic to whom the faculty of authenticating relics has been
  granted by  apostolic indult (c. 1283, 1).

  b) Without a special mandate a Vicar General cannot authenticate a
  relic, even if there is merely question of authenticating a relic
  taken from a relic already duly authenticated, or of issuing a new
  certificate of authenticity, or of placing a seal upon an
  authenticated relic (c. 1283, 2; CODE COMM.: JULY 17, 1933).

  c) Local Ordinaries shall prudently withdraw from public veneration
  any relic which they know is certainly not authentic (c. 1284).

  d) If the documents of their authenticity have been lost as a result
  of civil disturbance or some other mishap, sacred relics shall not be
  exposed for public veneration without the express approval of the
  local Ordinary; this approval cannot be given by the Vicar General
  without a special mandate (c. 1285, 1).

  e) What is stated above (d), does not apply to ancient relics. These
  shall be venerated in the same way as heretofore, unless for reasons
  that are certain it is evident that the relics are false or
  supposititious (c. 1285,2).

About Lockets

You will find on pages 18 and 19 of this document a description of "The Authentic" and some of the details of authentication to include the affixing of seals and the use of crossed threads.

  Underneath the back cover of the relic locket there is a seal of red
  wax.  The relic secured in place in the locket by threads that cross
  over it.  The threads are inserted through the walls of the locket on
  the opposing sides and it is sealed shut with a wax seal bearing the
  insignia of issuing religious authority and there order's initials.
  This seal and its locking procedure (threads and seal) should never be
  broken or cut.  It protects the integrity and validity of the
  authentication.

Source/caveat: Public Veneration and Exhibit Manual; 2000; Thomas J Serafin; (ICHRusa).  That makes this a contemporary source.


How can suffering from natural causes be reconciled with an omnimax god? The christian god is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent according to all christian denominations I know of. These attributes seem to be contradicted by all the suffering we observe here on earth. Why does God not intervene to prevent suffering if he knows of it (omniscience), has the means to prevent it (omnipotence) and is benevolent?

The most common explanation I heard was that the free will of humans is responsible, but this questions is not about that. There is a lot of suffering caused by natural catastrophes, illnesses and so forth. I want to restrict the question to natural causes where we have no means to prevent them, such as e.g. incurable diseases.

How can one explain the presence of inevitable suffering not caused by other humans, but by natural means, if God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent?

You're looking at the question from a mortal perspective, whereas God has an eternal perspective.  He put us here not to be here as an end unto itself, but to prepare us for what comes after this life.

In the Sermon on the Mount, we are commanded to be perfect "even as your Father in Heaven is perfect."  God is perfect because he never uses his power to do anything which would be wrong, no matter how tempting we might make it.  But we are imperfect and prone to physical and spiritual problems of every kind in this life.  In order to grow and attain a Godly level of perfection, we need practice.  We need for things to go wrong so that we can learn to deal with them correctly.  Otherwise, we can never become the kind of perfect people that the Gospel is supposed to lead us to be.


According to baptist belief what do you do to be saved? I have heard many times by baptist that I need to be saved. I feel I have already been saved, but I am curious what it means to a baptist. How can I be saved the baptist way? What are the requirements?

I have heard slightly differing views on the subject. One is that if somebody murders they can lose their salvation after being saved. Another is that once you have said a prayer and accepted Jesus as your savior, nothing can separate you from salvation, even if you for whatever reason want to. Is the only requirement to say a certain prayer? Or are there requirements after? Are you still saved even if nothing changes in your life besides you said a prayer accepting Christ? I have also heard that if you say the prayer and accept Christ as your savior, but you don't change your life to show faith, you were never saved in the first place. So is a prayer and some works required to show faith? What exactly is required in order to be saved?

That's sort of like asking, "What color is a horse?"  There are horses of many colors, and many answers to the question. Still there is pretty general agreement among all 'anabaptists' (That's the name that baptists get their name from.  It just means that they believe that water baptism does not save one, and must be done after one is 'saved.')

The common Baptist doctrine is that you do nothing in the way of good works or religious works, or works of any sort to be saved.  The one essential requirement is that one puts his trust in what Jesus has done. That's called "faith" or "believing" in the New Testament ('pistiuo' in New Testament Greek). "By grace are ye saved through faith...." Having by faith in Christ placed yourself before God, He imparts His Spirit to you, and your life begins to be different, so that you can (and will) begin to honestly 'confess Christ' because you are saved.


According to Evangelicals, who now has the authority to bind and loose (per Matt. 18:18)? According to Matt. 18:18, the Lord Jesus Christ gave the apostles the authority to bind and loose, that is, to prohibit and permit.

  Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (KJV, 1769)

According to Evangelicals,

Did this authority to bind and loose cease with the apostles?
If not, who among the Church now has the authority to bind and loose?
What is the criteria to effectively bind or loose?

Not a Duplicate

This question is not a duplicate of this question which requests the Protestant interpretation of Matt. 16:13-20. Matt. 16:13-20 focuses on the words of the Lord Jesus Christ to the apostle Peter and is used by Roman Catholics as a basis for Petrine primacy. My question is requesting the Evangelical interpretation of Matt. 18:18 wherein the Lord Jesus Christ grants all the apostles the ability to bind and loose. Two different verses, two different contexts, two different perspectives. Furthermore, in no way does the "best answer" to the other question provide an answer to this question.

You may possibly misreading the Scriptures. As I read the whole of chapter 18, I come away with a much different impression. Did Jesus give the authority only to the Apostles?

  Matthew 18:16 and 17 KJV  But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 17  And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Jesus to my mind gave that authority to the Church (all believers as a group). And his reason for doing so appears to be:

  Matthew 18:20 KJV  For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

This authority appears to be a shared authority there am I in the midst of them presumably any decision made by the group would be influenced by Jesus who is in their midst. And if we consider both verses 18 and 19 together

  Matthew 18:18 KJV  Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19  Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

it appears that those decisions have eternal consequences since it is God himself taking the action.

For those and many other reasons we as members of the Church (not Denominations) must be very careful in our agreed stances since as little as two of us can have eternal effects on another.

This interpretation of these Scriptures is also shared by Peter Guzik.

  Relating to one another in the Kingdom Community.
  1. (15) If you are sinned against, go and confront the guilty party directly.
  "Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother."
  a. Go and tell him his fault between you and him alone: It is essential that we go to the offending brother first - not griping and gossiping to others, especially under the guise of "sharing a prayer request" or "seeking counsel." Instead, speak to the party directly.
  i. It would be wrong for anyone to take Jesus' word here as a command to confront your brother with every sin they commit against you. The Bible says we should
  b. If he hears you, you have gained your brother: You have gained him in two ways. First, the problem has been cleared up. Perhaps you realized that he was right in some ways and he realized you were right in some ways, but the problem is resolved. Second, you have gained him because you have not wronged your brother by going to others with gossip and half the side of a dispute.
  2. (16-18) If one among the church is adamantly unrepentant, they are to be removed from fellowship.
  "But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that 'by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.' And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector. Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
  a. If he will not hear, take with you one or two more: The circle of people in the situation only becomes wider as the offending party refuses to listen. If the stubborn, unrepentant attitude remains they are to be refused fellowship (let him be to you like a heathen).
  i. This sense of being refused full standing and participation in the body of Christ is what Paul meant when he said to deliver such a one to Satan (1Co. 5:1-8). There is a sense in which the unrepentant one is chastened by their being placed outside of the "protection" of fellowship.
  b. Like a heathen and a tax collector: Even so, the unrepentant one must be treated just as we should treat a heathen and a tax collector - with great love, with the goal of bringing about a full repentance and reconciliation.
  c. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven: If this process is done humbly and according to the Word, this is quite binding in the eyes of God, even if the unrepentant ones just go to another church.
  3. (19-20) The power and blessing in fellowship that is denied the unrepentant.
  "Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them."
  a. If two of you agree on earth: There is real power in agreement in prayer and in the presence of Jesus. This is exactly what the unrepentant ones miss out on.
  i. In the ancient Greek, agree is literally "to symphonize." Jesus wants us to complement each other like a great orchestra.
  b. It will be done for them by My Father in heaven: We must take advantage of the power of agreement, which works on the principle related in Deu. 32:30, where one sets a thousand enemies to flight, but two set ten thousand enemies to flight. There is real power the prayer of agreement.
  c. Where two or three are gathered together in My name: Gathering in the name of Jesus means gathering according to His character and will, and gathering in a manner Jesus would endorse. This is when Jesus is really present (I am there in the midst of them).

Certainly many will look at my answer with a jaundiced eye, but after much study of the Bible this is more in keeping with my impressions of Jesus and his administration of his Church. It seems to me that Jesus would not want this authority to pass away with the Apostles and that seems to be the underlying reason for the Catholic Church having Papal descended. Whether the Catholic Church or my interpretation is correct that authority did not pass away, and depending upon which is correct the answer to who has that authority today appears to be either the Pope or the Church, or maybe both.

Has my answer left you in a more confused state than before?

Hope this helps.


In Galatians 4:19, what is the meaning of "Christ formed in you"? When Paul is speaking of Christ being in the Galatians, what is the true meaning of that phrase, "Christ formed in you"?  Does it relate directly to salvation?
In the context of the letter, he speaks of the woman Hagar who represents condemnation under the law and the free woman Sarah whom by Faith receives the blessing of God.  Paul writes that when the Galatians place themselves under the law they are condemned and not in Christ.  So, is the meaning of this condemnation purely earthly or is it also spiritual (hell vs heaven)?
I want to clarify what this means before taking the next step of, "does this scripture mean we can lose our salvation?"

(KJV)  My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be
formed in you,
(ESV) my little children, for whom I am again in the anguish of childbirth until Christ is formed in you!

(emphasis added)

This may seem simplistic but you have already read the complex.  The meaning is simple.  Christ formed in us is exactly what it says.  First of all we initiate the salvation experience by surrendering to Christ and inviting Him into our heart to live and He is formed in us.  Additionally, as we grow in understanding, we become examples of Christianity and, essentially, Christ is formed in us once again.