How do Young Earth Creationists explain artifacts dated to 20,000 years ago or more? Many creationists and Christians believe the earth is around 6000 years old. I am taking art history and some of the artifacts or pieces of art that were created by humans back then had been carbon dated back to 10,000 to 20,000 years ago or even longer.

How do Young Earth Creationists explain this?

As others noted, icr.org and answersingenesis.com have numerous articles on the subject. The argument is usually boiled down into the following points:

1) Accurate radioactive dating assumes that the decay rate of a radioactive material has not changed over time and is the same today as long in the past.

2) Dating of objects less than about 50,000 years old is done using Carbon-14, not other isotopes that have much longer half-lives, such as potassium-argon, uranium-lead, rubidium-strontium, etc. (See http://www.creationstudies.org/operationsalt/carbon14.html ) (Other non-radioactive methods have their proponents, and these methods have their own problems. e.g. dendrochronology- studying tree rings. See http://www.icr.org/article/7058/ )

3) Only once-living things may be so dated. (Although, consider the presence of C-14 in diamonds thought to be millions or billions of years old: https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/carbon-14-in-fossils-and-diamonds/ ) (Also, there are restrictions. e.g. Sea creatures and animals that eat sea creatures are excluded, since the amount of C-14 in the ocean is much different than the atmosphere.)

4) Dating using Carbon-14 assumes that the fraction of C-14 in the atmosphere had reached a steady state value long ago and has not changed appreciably since then. (C-14 is assumed to be created by cosmic rays hitting Nitrogen in the atmosphere.)

5) C-14 is absorbed into organisms via respiration or consuming plants that contain it.

6) After the organism dies and is buried, no more C-14 enters it, and the C-14 already inside it begins to decay, starting the clock.

7) During the period that the organism is buried and fossilized or preserved in some other way, no chemical processes cause additional C-14 to enter the specimen or be leached out of it.

8) When the specimen is dug up and prepared for analysis, it is not contaminated by foreign sources of carbon.

9) The machines used to determine the ratio of C-14 to C-12 are well-calibrated and sensitive enough to make an accurate determination.

I doubt that anyone, Creationist, Evolutionist or other, would disagree with what I just said. The question is, how valid are the many assumptions that I listed? Some of them must be taken on faith - we have no way to inspect the entire geological and chemical history that a specimen has undergone in order to tell if any assumptions have been violated.

Young earth creationists have challenged several of the assumptions.

1) If the Earth was recently created, then at the start, before any cosmic rays had yet hit the atmosphere, there would be no C-14 in it. Any plants or animals that died and were buried at this time would have no C-14, hence would appear to be very old - say 100,000 years old, or the limit of our machines ability to measure.

2) Over time, as C-14 built up in the atmosphere (via cosmic ray bombardment of atmospheric Nitrogen), things would begin to take on a younger C-14 age.

3) The flood of Noah removed a huge amount of carbon from the biosphere, burying it underground. This cause a sudden drop in C-14. (See https://www.icr.org/article/7311 )

4) Since then, C-14 has recovered and increased.

The above story is consistent with the Bible, and accounts for fluctuation in C-14 concentrations in the atmosphere that would then be interpreted as older and younger ages than the true ages.

In addition, experiments have been performed that show that the decay rate can be altered under certain laboratory conditions. (See https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/acceleration-of-radioactivity-shown-in-laboratory/ )  It is theorized that the flood was caused by God speeding the decay rate, causing excess heat inside the earth, triggering volcanism and earthquakes and shifting tectonic plates, which poured steam into the atmosphere, forming the clouds that inundated the world.

The resulting warm ocean and volcanoes caused so much water and dust to enter the atmosphere, that they blocked the sun and triggered an ice age. (See http://www.icr.org/article/ice-age-genesis-flood/ )

The importance of understanding the true initial conditions of the earth cannot be overstated. For example, potassium-argon dating (used for longer time scales) assumes that molten volcanic rock is so hot that it forces all the argon gas out before the rock cools. Then inside the cool rock, potassium begins to decay into argon, which remains trapped in the solid rock. However, recent volcanoes have been studied. Volcanic rocks only a year or two old are found to be millions of years old by K-Ar dating, because they have argon gas that the theories said should not be there. Thus we have actual experimental evidence to show that their assumptions are not (at least in some cases) valid. (See https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/anomalous-potassium-argon-ages-implications/ )

Quote from http://www.creationstudies.org/operationsalt/carbon14.html:

  "Scientists now realize that production of carbon-14 has not been
  constant over the years, but has changed as the radiation from the sun
  has fluctuated."


What is the biblical basis for the imputation of Christ's righteousness to believers? In Christendom as a whole, and within evangelicalism and Reformed theology more specifically, one of the controversial aspects of the doctrine of justification is the imputation of the righteousness of Christ.  In simple terms, this refers to God counting his children righteous on the basis of Jesus's righteous life on earth, not only on the basis of his death and resurrection.

Some simply reject the entire idea of God imputing anything to anyone, whether sin or righteousness.  Others accept imputation of our sin to Jesus in his death, but reject the imputation of the righteousness of Jesus to us.  Included in this group are some that are often considered "evangelical," such as N. T. Wright, Robert Gundry, and Norman Shepherd. John Frame writes that "Shepherd regards the imputation of Christ's active obedience as an addition to Scripture," but I imagine proponents see the matter differently.

What is the biblical basis for the doctrine of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ being a basis of a Christian's justification?

Note that I do not wish to focus on whether the "active" obedience of Christ can be properly distinguished from his "passive" obedience. Instead my focus is on the imputation of Christ's righteousness, which, when a distinction is made, is normally associated with his "active" obedience.

The imputation of Christ's righteousness is typically defended in light of arguments for the penal substitutionary theory of the atonement and/or the doctrine of salvation by faith alone.  In this context, perhaps the three strongest and most commonly cited passages used to extend to this particular aspect of justification are Romans 5 (particularly verse 19), 2 Corinthians 5:21, and Philippians 3:8–9.  We'll look at each of those in some detail, and then following that briefly mention a few other relevant verses.
Romans 5
John Murray, in Redemption: Accomplished and Applied, argues that justification of believers entails two things – first, God makes or constitutes Christians righteous, and then he declares them righteous.  The imputation of Christ's righteousness is a key aspect of the first of these actions, and Romans 5, particularly verse 19, is seen as evidence for this:

For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. (ESV)

That is, the obedience of the "one man," Jesus, makes (or constitutes) many people righteous.  Murray continues:

In Romans 5:17 [Paul] speaks of those who receive "the free gift of righteousness" and in verse 18 of the judgment which passes upon men unto justification of life "through one righteousness." It is clear that the justification which is unto eternal life Paul regards as consisting in our being constituted righteous, in our receiving righteousness as a free gift, and this righteousness is none other than the righteousness of the one man Jesus Christ; it is the righteousness of his obedience.

Romans 5 is particularly relevant, Charles Hodge says, because in it Paul draws a parallel between Adam's sin ("the one man's disobedience") with Christ's righteousness. Thus, he says, the scriptural basis for the imputation of Adam's sin to mankind can also be employed to defend the imputation of Christ's righteousness.
2 Corinthians 5:21
Another commonly cited passage is 2 Corinthians 5:21:

For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (ESV)

Like Romans 5:19, some might argue that "righteousness of God" in this verse refers to increasingly moral behavior in the believer.  But Hodge argues that such an interpretation causes the analogy to break down:

As Christ was not made sin in a moral sense; so we are not (in justification) made righteousness in a moral sense. As He was made sin in that He “bare our sins;” so we are made righteousness in that we bear his righteousness. Our sins were the judicial ground of his humiliation under the law and of all his sufferings; so his righteousness is the judicial ground of our justification. In other words, as our sins were imputed to Him; so his righteousness is imputed to us. If imputation of sin did not render Him morally corrupt; the imputation of righteousness does not make us holy or morally good.

Philippians 3:8–9

For [Christ's] sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith (ESV)

Wayne Grudem and Hodge both point to this passage as well, and Hodge explains why it should be interpreted as teaching the imputation of Christ's righteousness:

[Paul] “suffered the loss of all things,” that he might be found in Christ, not having his “own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith.” Here again one’s own righteousness is contrasted with that which is of God. The word must have the same sense in both members. What Paul trusted to, was not his own righteousness, not his own subjective goodness, but a righteousness provided for him and received by faith.

Other passages
Charles Hodge and others mention 1 Corinthians 1:30, saying that it indicates a distinction between receipt of righteousness via imputation and the process of sanctification.  John Murray cites Isaiah 61:10 ("he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness") and Isaiah 54:17 ("their righteousness is of me, saith the Lord") as evidence for God being the source of the Christian's righteousness. And Wayne Grudem argues that Christ's desire to "fulfill all righteousness" in Matthew 3:15 is related as well:

[Jesus] had to "fulfill all righteousness" for our sake; that is, for the sake of the people whom he was representing as their head.  Unless he had done this for us, we would have no record of obedience by which we would merit God's favor and merit eternal life with him.  Moreover, if Jesus had needed only sinlessness and not also a life of perfect obedience, he could have died for us when he was a young child rather than when he was thirty-three years old.

And in the debates over this doctrine in the Westminster assembly, J. V. Fesko relates how proponents also pointed to passages connecting life with obedience to the commandments, such as Leviticus 18:5 and Matthew 19:17 ("If you would enter life, keep the commandments," ESV).  Without the imputation of Christ's obedience of the commandments to them, the argument goes, Christians could not enter life.
Summary
Proponents of the imputation of the Christ's righteousness typically build on their arguments for penal substitutionary atonement and salvation by faith alone and contend that several passages, particularly Romans 5:19, 2 Corinthians 5:21, and Philippians 3:8–9, support the doctrine.  To them, the discussion of the righteousness of God/Jesus and its application to Christians in these verses refers to the imputation of Christ's righteousness to believers as a basis for and an aspect of their justification.

References

Fesko, J. V., Theology of the Westminster Standards, Chapter 7
Grudem, Systematic Theology, 570–71.
Hodge, Systematic Theology
Murray, Redemption: Accomplished and Applied, Chapter 5

See also Robert L. Reymond, Systematic Theology, Chapter 19.


Does "all have sinned" (Rom. 3:23, 5:12) include every single human being? My mother and I go round and round on various Catholic vs. Protestant beliefs and in particular the Catholic belief in the pseudo-divinity of Mary. One item is whether Mary was sinless.

I pointed to Paul's statement:

  Romans 3:23For all have sinned…

or

  Romans 5:12…by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

That would seem to include Mary among the "all". Yet her retort is the "all" would then have to mean babies in the womb, infants, etc., who weren't capable of sin. My thinking is Paul might have meant "all" as referring to those actually capable of sinning or old enough to know better.

According to the Catholic Church, what did Paul really mean by that declaration? Does "all" really mean "all"?

According to Catholicism: Does “all have sinned” (Rom. 3:23, 5:12) include every single human being?

According to Catholicism the short answer is: No.

The two exceptions according to the Church were Jesus called the Christ and his mother Mary.

  The belief that Mary lived without sin from the moment of her conception springs from Church tradition. It evolved over a period of time and was not formally defined as a teaching of the Church until 1854. It is not found explicitly in Scripture, but seems for Catholics to flow naturally from the testimony of Scripture that Mary was “full of grace” (Luke 1:28) and “blessed” (Luke 1:42).

  In Catholic understanding, the belief in Mary’s “immaculate conception” does not say so much about Mary as it is about Christ’s saving power. We believe that God created the human person to be in God’s own image. Grace is more original than sin. Our natural state was to be “full of grace.” Sin is our universal experience, but it’s not what God intended for us in the past nor wants for us in the future. We are saved from sin through Christ. Mary’s being conceived without sin takes place in the context of the entire saving act of Christ. In being “full of grace” she is a model of what we human beings were intended to be and who we are redeemed to be through God’s saving power. She is the first sign of God’s victory over sin in Christ. - Where in the Bible does it say that Mary, mother of Jesus, is sinless? And if it is not in the Bible, why does the Catholic Church act like she is?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains it this way:

  490 To become the mother of the Saviour, Mary “was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role.” The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as “full of grace”.  In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God's grace.

  491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, “full of grace” through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:

    The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.

  8 Things You Need to Know About the Immaculate Conception


How do (non-Catholic) proponents of an intermediate state interpret 2 Corinthians 5:4-9? (2 Corinthians 5:4-9 KJV) For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.
Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.
Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:
(For we walk by faith, not by sight:)
We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him.

This passage has been used in support by proponents of teachings regarding the end of life in which the soul of the deceased immediately departs the body and enters into Heaven or Hell.
Besides the Catholic teaching of purgatory, how do Christians who hold to an intermediate state interpret this this passage?

This answer is from the perspective that we do not enter into eternal heaven after death, but await Christ's second coming and the resurrection in an intermediate state.
First, we must go a bit further back in the passage than the question quotes. I will be doing this in a commentary like style, all brackets and emphasis is mine.
Opening Observations
The first thing that becomes evident is Paul's choice of words to describe these bodies. The earthly one is a tent, connoting a temporary dwelling, perhaps even recalling thoughts of Israel's tabernacle tent in the wilderness. In contrast the eternal body is described as a building, a house, a more permanent structure, this time referencing the finished Temple.
Second, the our current bodies are earthly, and our eternal one is heavenly. These descriptions are qualitative, not substantive.

The heavenly one is made by God, while ours is made by men (God made Adam's but we now produce our own).
The heavenly one is eternal, while the earthly will be destroyed.
The heavenly will further cloth us, cloths more and better, than the old tent.
The mortal body is swallowed up by death, the new will swallow the old up in life.

And lastly, there is a running contrast of old to new, earthly to heavenly, mortal to immortal, temporary to eternal, perishable to imperishable: old body [OB] to new body[NB]. Recognizing this continuing point and counterpoint pattern is important to understanding the meaning of the passage.
2 Cor 5:1-10 (ESV)

1 For we know that if the tent[OB] that is our earthly home[OB] is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house[NB] not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
2 For in this tent[OB] we groan, longing to put on our heavenly dwelling[NB],

Earthly tent to heavenly building/house.

3 if indeed by putting it[NB] on we may not be found naked.
4 For while we are still in this tent[OB], we groan, being burdened—not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed[NB], so that what is mortal[OB] may be swallowed up by life[NB].

The heavenly one will further cloth us, will be better than our current and will be swallowed up in life. Our current bodies are swallowed up in death but when perishable puts on imperishable, death in our bodies will be conquered: 1 Cor 15:54

54 When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written:
“Death is swallowed up in victory.” (Isaiah 25:8)

The key point here to not misunderstanding verse 8 is the point that we are not to be unclothed, that is, without a body, but rather the new will replaced the old. No where in any of Paul's descriptions is there a condition without either body that Paul wants. He, in fact, expressly does not want to be unclothed, that is, being found naked without the mortal body, but still without the new immortal body.

5 He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who has given us the Spirit as a guarantee.
6 So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body[OB] we are away from the Lord,
7 for we walk by faith, not by sight.
8 Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body[OB] and at home[NB]with the Lord.

First, v8 is a clear reversal of v6. Instead of being home in the body and away from the Lord, Paul wants to be away from the body and at home with the Lord. The "body" here must be identified not as any and all bodies, but as the old body.
The contrast of the whole chapter thus far continues and by now we should know of what and when this is describing. We will not be away from our mortal body, naked and unclothed, without being clothed in our heavenly body. So to be away from this body means to be clothed in the next.
What is this really talking about? As we saw in v1 our current home is our earthly body and while in it we are separated, away, from true union with the Lord.
But the emphasis from v5-7 is in having faith, in taking courage and the Spirit being a guarantee. Faith in what? That we will be further clothed when at home with the Lord.

9 So whether we are at home[OB] or away[NB], we make it our aim to please him.

Whether we are in this body or in our eternal body, we aim to please the Lord. The pattern continues, there is no new "away" option that does not involve one of the two bodies.

10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.

Those who would quote v8 but take it out of its v10 context do it injustice. v10 is telling us that we will not receive our reward until the judgment seat of Christ. This is the context and focus point that Paul has in mind. Paul always points to Christ's coming and our resurrection, never to heaven, as our reward and hope.
Greek
If we examine the original Greek we see there are two words used here that are very uncommon. These words are translated in most modern translations, including the ESV I’ve quoted above, as Home and Away.
In an excellent answer to the question "Meaning of ἐνδημέω and ἐκδημέω in 2 Cor 5?" the author summarizes:

The apostle Paul uses the verbs ἐκδημέω and ἐνδημέω according to δῆμος in the sense of “country.” Thus, the verb ἐκδημέω means “to be out of (ἐξ) the country,” which is synonymous with “to be away from home,” “to travel abroad,” or “to emmigrate.” The verb ἐνδημέω means to be “in (ἐν) the country,” which is synonymous with “to be at home.” 2

After examining the usage and context of these two words used by Paul within this passage, the author ultimately concludes:

he[Paul] seems intent on discussing the mortal (corruptible, physical) v. immortal (incorruptible, spiritual) bodies.” 2

The KJV rendering of “present” and “absent” has likely helped to propagate the idea that verses 6 and 8 are saying when we leave our earthly bodies we will go to be present with, or in the presence of,  the Lord (irrespective of a heavenly body). However, as the evaluation above reflects, and as most major modern translations agree, the translation as “home” and “away” is truer to the original language.
Conclusion
So we see that those who quote v8 alone as proof we go to be with the Lord when the body dies misunderstand the point. Paul is telling us to be encouraged that we have a guarantee that we will not be left in these mortal bodies and separated from the Lord, but rather to have faith that Christ will come again and resurrect us in eternal bodies. He will neither leave us in our old, nor leave us naked and unclothed, but He will cloth us further and better when we are with Him when He comes again.
This passage is not saying we do not go into the presence of the Lord in the intermediate state between death and the resurrection, but it also does not say that we do. Rather, it has little to say directly about the intermediate state. We could reason that it does say we are unclothed of any body during the intermediate state, since Paul affirms we do not receive the new body until the resurrection. But that does not preclude the possibility that biblical writers see man as continuing to be clothed in the earthly body, even in death, until the resurrection.


Was the full Sign of the Cross prevalent in entire Catholic Church? As a member of the Syrian Rite Catholic Church, I was taught to make a full Sign of the Cross while entering the church, while  starting a long prayer etc. While the sign made is similar to the one  made by the faithful at the commencement of the Gospel-reading in the Holy Mass (Latin rite),  the prayer that accompanies the sign is different. It can be roughly translated as:

" By the sign  of the Holy Cross, save us from from our enemies, our Lord, in the name of the Father, the son and the Holy Spirit, Amen. "

I wish to know if the said custom of making the Sign of Cross during which one makes cross-signs on one's forehead, lips, chest and shoulders, while reciting the prayer, was prevalent in the entire Catholic Church , and whether it was later substistuted with the smaller Sign of the Cross .

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

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

Thus, it seems the formula has varied according to place, time, and probably the occasion. It has not been accompanied by words all the time either.

Regarding the actual sign, the same source tells of different methods:

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


How should Christians discipline their children today? Proverbs 13:24 (NIV) teaches us that:

  24 Whoever spares the rod hates their children,
     but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them.

I realize child abuse is a serious matter, and spanking is in some areas considered child abuse.

In US society and maybe others, it seems to be a real fear that if you spank your children, you could lose them to social services.

So how do Christians discipline their children as the Bible instructs in today's society?

Very good question.
The way to live your life as a Christian, is to find out what the scripture says and conform to that.
I live in America and I spank my child. I have no fear of losing them to Social Services. I play by the rules, using an open hand on the butt. I normally only have to smack them once or twice to get my point across.
I was raised by a 5'4" one hundred and ten pound mom that spanked me. When I get out of line today I still get hit, thanks mom...  I can tell you that she did it right, I have the utmost respect for my mother and rarely if ever talk back to any of  my elders because of it. The Bible is true folks.

Proverbs 29:17 NIV
Discipline your children, and they will give you peace; they will
bring you the delights you desire.

This is a very, very valid point here. When you discipline your child with persistence, they will learn to respect you when you ask them to do something. They will not always fight you and therefore you will not always have to spank them.
Spanking is not the only answer to this question either. There's some book out called Love and Logic, although the book has its many fallacies as it relies to heavily on the secular, it still has some valid points. This book has some interesting ideas.
It's good to have a specific discipline for different kinds of offenses.

Cleaning up: 'till this day when I get mad I always start cleaning. It's a good technique to have your child go clean their room when they get into trouble or fights with each other. Probably not the most logical discipline if they're offense was not listening.
Timeout chair: although this is best used in tandem with spanking in my experience.
Make them say their sorry: If one child hurts another child I ALWAYS make them show love before the punishment of timeout. "Go give your brother a hug and a kiss and tell him that you're sorry."
Go to your Room: This is much different then time-outs, which usually involve the corner. If my children throw themselves on the ground or begin crying to get their way I escort them to their room and let them know that they can come out when they're done. These days they stop immediately, but I will not talk to them until they have regained their composure.

Remember that no matter what you do consistency is the key.
Another thing that I have learned is to pick my battles. There have been a few times in mine and my wives lives that we sat down, looked at each other and realized that we were yelling at the kids for every tiny offense.
Think about what you're child is doing before you tell them to not do it. Seriously. One day my child was climbing up on the window sill, 20" of the ground and I had the urge to tell them no. Then I thought about it for a minute, what is it going to hurt? If they fall, they will not die, they're just going to learn why I would be telling them no.
So my child slipped off the window sill and bopped his chin, crying of course he came to me (20 months old). I told him, "That's why we don't climb on the window. So remember, the next time I tell you that you can get hurt, this is why."


What is the source of Paul's issues with Sophistry? Was sophistry a common problem that believers where faced with in Paul's era or sophistry just used in the Biblical sense to mean any time of misleading philosophy? Verses like this one makes me wonder in what context exactly the word is used in the Bible?
Sophistry to me always meant people who are needlessly argumentative, who don't debate in order to search for truth, but just for the sake or arguing. Was the sophists of ancient Rome not akin to today's lawyer's and attorneys, people who argue cases without necessarily believing in there truth?

You foolish Galatians! Whose sophistry has bewitched you--you to whom
Jesus Christ has been vividly portrayed as on the Cross?

The translation you quoted came from Weymouth New Testament, the only one using the word "sophistry" to translate the phrase "τίς ὑμᾶς ἐβάσκανεν ⧼τῇ ἀληθείᾳ μὴ πείθεσθαι⧽" (who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth) in Gal 3:1.  It is insufficient evidence to say that Paul or NT believers had issue with sophistry, with the Sophists or with the philosophy that Sophists used.
I agree with your modern definition of sophistry and with the characterization of the sophists of ancient Rome. More fundamentally, the Sophists did not believe that there are objective moral truths, akin to today's moral relativists.  But even worse, Sophists claim that justice is "nothing but the interest of the stronger" (see the article Is Justice a Matter of Truth or Power), again an idea that is distressingly still with us today.  No wonder then, that this idea justified them to defend either side (the "guilty" as well as the "not-guilty") in the courtroom with powerful rhetoric unconstrainted by truth (i.e. with sophistry).
I don't think believers in Paul's era battled them; we only see Epicurean and Stoic philosophers in the NT.  The most powerful philosophy battled by the early church fathers was Neo-Platonism, prompting early apologist Tertullian to exclaim his famous quote "What Has Jerusalem to do with Athens" although he didn't mind using philosophical terminologies to defend Christianity.


When are children held accountable for ther sins? There's an interesting topic regarding the salvation of unborn babies that inspired this question.

I believe that babies that die previous to birth go to heaven.  I also believe that young children that die go to heaven as well.

But at what point are children responsible for their sins?  My 2 year old may sin, not knowing it as a sin.  Is she guilty of that sin and will she be held accountable by God?  What about a 5 year old?

The Jewish belief is that they're not accountable until age 13 (thus part of the reason for the bar/bat mitzvah).  Is that really the answer for Christians, though?

In order to give any meaningful answer, we must first assume the existence of free will.  Otherwise, the question is moot; children are simply doing what has been predestined that they will do. But if we understand that free will is given to everyone, including children, then it's fairly easy to answer.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus explained that sin begins in one's thoughts, and that it's important to keep from thoughts that can lead us to do evil.  So therefore, children who don't understand the concept of sin and the difference between good and evil aren't capable of choosing to commit sin.

They can do exasperating things sometimes, usually because it's simple human nature to seek fulfillment of basic needs and they don't understand self-restraint yet, or because they crave attention and they've learned that doing certain things will bring immediate reactions from adults.  But it's not until they're old enough to understand the abstract concepts of absolute good and evil existing independent of themselves and their desires that they're capable of knowingly choosing something that's wrong, and thereby committing sin.

I don't believe the Bible gives any doctrine as to exactly when that awareness comes to a child.  I've seen some research in child psychology that suggests that it comes towards the end of the first decade of life, but that's hardly conclusive, and it's probably a bit different for every kid anyway.


What makes a Council's conclusions authoritative? I was just reflecting on an answer to a question I recently asked, and began to wonder... How do we know the conclusions of a given Council were true?  Are all findings by Christian Councils authoritative?  If not, what is the criteria by which we can judge the findings of a Council?  Is it decided democratically amongst those claiming to be Christians?

If there is indeed a "standard" by which Council findings are evaluated, why would we consider the Council findings as "authoritative", as opposed to simply considering the "standard" to be authoritative.

(The answer may not be as straightforward as it seems.)

Historically, there have been four sources of theology:

Scripture
Tradition
Reason
Experience.

This formulation goes back quite a ways.  Scripture is always first, Tradition is always second, and reason and experience are a distant third and fourth. The fun comes in when one realizes that it is not possible to read Scripture without a tradition.

As a very banal example, in the Hebrew text, YHWH has no vowels, and yet traditionally the vowels of "Adonai" are used, resulting roughly in "Yahweh" or "Jehovah."  The tradition informs the reading.

The position of the Catholic Church is actually quite rational in this regard - it reserves to itself the power to declare what is traditional and non-traditional when reading Scripture. In a way the standard of what is acceptable within the Roman Catholic Church is what the church says.

The Councils are like that, only unlike a single interpretation (namely that of the Bishop of Rome,) the Ecumenical Councils were the best attempt at the time to convene all of the spectrum of Christianity.  When, in 325, Constantine gathered the church, the whole point was to get as broad a consensus as possible.  The statement at Nicea had no more legal authority or scientific power then a petition signed by, say, 55 leading landowners in the American colonies in 1776.  But, the attendants were sufficiently representative and authoritative that it made sense for them to be considered the standard bearers of what "Christianity" meant at the time.

Were they "right?"  That's actually a non-answerable question.  What they were was representative of what the vast majority of influential Christians believed.  Sure, they asked for the Holy Spirit's guidance, and these were good men - but did God actually physically appear and say "This is my beloved council in whom I am well pleased?"  No.

But then again, did he ever do that when King James' translators presented their work to the King? Or when Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul dropped their parchments in the mailbox? No, again.

I believe wholeheartedly that the way the Christian Faith is practiced is both what God intended and still manages to fall woefully short of what is "right."  Trust me when I say, of all the indiginities God suffered, his church is by far the most recent. It is a flawed creature - but like a little child it seeks to please its Father as best it can.

As a hermeneutic, Christians tend to put more emphasis on those closer in time to Christ. As a matter of practice, we tend to defer to people better at theology than us (I, for one, cannot take on Polycarp or Irenaeus or Augustine, or even the Bishop of Rome).  As an agreed upon set of rules, then we traditionally defer to the traditional interpretation out of traditional accepted theology.

Is it "right"? Who knows. But it is representative of the "standard" against which we measure theology? Indeed, it is the very definition of "the best we can do."


When were the early Christians no longer considered a sect of Judaism? In Acts 28:22 the group of early Christians is referred to as a sect. Presumably as a sect of the existing Jewish religion.

The question is when were the early Christians no longer considered a sect of the Jewish religion?

For etymology and meaning please see: Sect and Sects | New Advent.

It seems that this question has two points. First, when Christians stopped to practice Jewish traditions. Second, when others stopped to think that they are a Jewish sect. Either part has a strict border.

Regarding the first part, I would assume that this is related to the destruction of the Temple when many Christians left Palestine. This event also caused significant changes in the Jewish community: many Temple related rituals disappeared. No other change was so significant. On the other hand, there are some attempts to go back to the Jewish tradition and practices, e.g. Adventists of the Seventh Day.

Regarding the second part, the limited understanding in the Roman empire was caused by the illegality. Thus, the most important date seems to be 313. On the other hand, there are still people in the modern era who thought Christians to be a Jewish sect:

  Historically speaking, the Christian religion is nothing but a Jewish sect.... After the destruction of Judaism, the extinction of Christian slave morals must follow logically.... Ah, the God of the deserts, that crazed, stupid, vengeful Asiatic despot with his power to make laws! (Adolf Hitler)

End note

In some sense, Christians are a Jewish sect, they have Jewish roots and Christianity was founded by a Jew. This fact is obvious from the the Biblical canon, as well as from liturgy.


Why the differences between the Maundy Thursday Mandatum and the Eucharist? The two links below are examples of many, many Roman Catholic resources explaining the origin, significance, and liturgical format of foot washing (The Mandatum) which takes place during Maundy Thursday services.

Holy Thursday Mandatum

Mandatum: Liturgical History

The biblical text undergirding this practice is in John 13:

  Now before the Feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end. During supper, when the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him, Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going back to God, rose from supper. He laid aside his outer garments, and taking a towel, tied it around his waist. Then he poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples' feet and to wipe them with the towel that was wrapped around him. He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, “Lord, do you wash my feet?” Jesus answered him, “What I am doing you do not understand now, but afterward you will understand.” Peter said to him, “You shall never wash my feet.” Jesus answered him, “If I do not wash you, you have no share with me.” Simon Peter said to him, “Lord, not my feet only but also my hands and my head!” Jesus said to him, “The one who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet, but is completely clean. And you are clean, but not every one of you.” For he knew who was to betray him; that was why he said, “Not all of you are clean.”  When he had washed their feet and put on his outer garments and resumed his place, he said to them, “Do you understand what I have done to you? You call me Teacher and Lord, and you are right, for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you. Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them. - John 13:1-17

I will pull excerpts from this passage as I try to clarify my questions (asked of Roman Catholicism).

a) "For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you."  Since this took place during the same Passover meal that Christ eagerly desired to eat with His disciples and during which the Lord's Supper was instituted, and since the act appears preparatory to that first Eucharist, why does the Roman Catholic Church only incorporate this into one liturgy each year while the Eucharist takes place during each liturgy?

b) "If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet."  Given that Jesus washed the feet of everyone there (apparently even Judas) and given that Jesus commanded them to likewise wash one another's feet, why does the Roman Catholic celebration of this event involve only the principle celebrant (Bishop, Priest, or those he designates) doing the washing to only a certain number of chosen congregants?  An ancillary question here is; Are Catholic parishioners likewise encouraged to wash one another's feet going forward?

c) "If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them."  I guess this question is more overarching.  Given the tight Scriptural linkage (not just by proximity but by intentionality) between the foot washing (I have given you an example that you should do) and the Lord's Supper (Do this in remembrance of me), why does Roman Catholicism hold the latter as the literal and indispensable centerpiece of each liturgy while the former is only remembered yearly and symbolically?

Why does only the priest do the washing?
The priest celebrates Mass In persona Christi (in the person of Christ). As Pope Pius XII explains,

The priest is the same, Jesus Christ, whose sacred Person His minister represents.

Given this liturgical principle and reality, it is appropriate that Christ's action (washing of feet) is performed by the priest instead of the laity.
Why are not feet washed at every Mass?
The consecration of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Our Lord is essential to the Eucharistic sacrifice; washing of feet is not.
Psalm 110 tells us that Christ will be "a priest forever in the manner of Melchizedek." The essence of Melchizedek's priesthood was offering "bread and wine".
The Mass is a true sacrifice, not merely a commemoration of the Last Supper. What is offered at Mass is Christ's Body and Blood; what is consummated at Mass is Christ's Body and Blood. Washing of feet is neither offered nor consumed.


What is the meaning of "sola scriptura"? I often see "sola scriptura" used with two very different meanings.

Serendipitously, when I typed the title question, the first two "Similar questions" presented by SE were:

What is the basis for not believing sola scriptura?
Sola scriptura is Latin for "by scripture alone". ... the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation.
Sola Scriptura and the Biblical Canon
The basic argument of Sola Scriptura is that all Christian teachings and traditions are to be founded in and subservient to the Bible, and in nothing else.

The first says that the Bible is sufficient, but allows for additional sources of truth.  "Scripture alone" provides everything we need to know, but not necessarily everything we can know.

The second says that the Bible is necessary, and denies the possibility of additional sources of truth.  "Scripture alone" is the only acceptable source of truth.

Depending upon one's denomination, either meaning is acceptable, but it seems strange that the one phrase should have two such different definitions.

Which one of these is a corruption of the original meaning?

Clarification:

Everyone (even atheists) will agree that of the two definitions, either, neither, but not both can be true.

Given a "new" doctrine that doesn't conflict with the Bible, the first view would say "it might be true, and it's okay to accept it, but believing or not believing it won't affect our salvation", while the second view would say "even if it is true, we should reject it for being non-Biblical".

I'm interested in knowing the original meaning, and in the history of how the meaning of "sola scriptura" changed to take on two contradictory meanings.

Summary:

The response that best answers this question is the comment containing a link to GratefulDisciple's answer to a similar question, which refers to four different definitions of Sola Scriptura as described in Keith Mathison's "The Shape of Sola Scriptura".  In particular, the differences between "Tradition 1" and "Tradition 0" are what I was asking about.  Tradition 0 corresponds to the "in nothing else" view, which Mathison calls "Solo Scriptura", with an "o" rather than an "a".

I’m not at all convinced that the two interpretations of Sola Scriptura presented in your question are definitive, let alone which one is a corruption of the original meaning.  But before we go any further, it is important to establish what “Tradition” means.  One source of information says this under the heading ‘Irenaeus and Tertullian held to sola Scriptura’:

It is with the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian in the mid to late second century that we first encounter the concept of Apostolic Tradition (tradition handed down in the Church from the apostles in oral form). The word tradition simply means teaching.  Irenaeus and Tertullian state emphatically that all the teachings of the Bishops that was given orally was rooted in Scripture and could be proven from the written Scriptures. Both men give the actual doctrinal content of the Apostolic Tradition that was orally preached in the churches. From this, it can be seen clearly that all their doctrine was derived from Scripture. There was no doctrine in what they refer to as apostolic Tradition that is not found in Scripture.  In other words, the apostolic Tradition defined by Irenaeus and Tertullian is simply the teaching of Scripture...  The Early Church operated on the basis of the principle of sola Scriptura. It was this historical principle that the Reformers sought to restore to the Church.  Source: https://christiananswers.net/q-eden/sola-scriptura-earlychurch.html

Here are a few excerpts from an article adapted from a chapter entitled "Sola Scriptura" by Mark D. Thomson in Reformation Theology: A Systematic Summary, edited by Matthew Barrett.  What Did Luther Really Believe about Scriptural Authority?

Luther was summoned to an interview with Tommaso de Vio, or Cardinal Cajetan (1469–1534), following the Diet of Augsburg in October 1518. When Cajetan challenged him on the basis of the church’s teaching, Luther insisted, “The truth of Scripture comes first. After that is accepted one may determine whether the words of men can be accepted as true.” [1 Martin Luther, Acta Augustana (1518), WA 2:21.5–6; LW 31:282.]
It is clear that Luther was not dismissing the authority of “the words of men” but rather submitting them to what he regarded as a higher authority, “the truth of Scripture.” Throughout his ministry Luther would cite the fathers and the creeds and even some decisions of the early church councils in support of his teaching, but he did not consider them decisive. Yet they were also more than merely illustrative. Insofar as they faithfully expressed the teaching of Scripture, they were to be regarded as authoritative. Scripture was not the only authority but rather the final authority.
He recognized other subsidiary and contingent authorities, not alongside but under the rule of Scripture, which remained his final authority. These other authorities included not only the church fathers but also a number of significant medieval theologians.
His willingness to reason from the Scriptures (following the example of Paul in Acts 17:2) is evident as early as the famous statement made at the Diet of Worms in May 1521:6
”Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by evident reason—for I can believe neither pope nor councils alone, as it is clear that they have erred repeatedly and contradicted themselves—I consider myself conquered by the Scriptures adduced by me and my conscience is captive to the Word of God.” [7 Martin Luther, Verhandlungen mit D. Martin Luther auf dem Reichstage zu Worms (1521), WA 7:838.4–7; LW 32:112.]
So for Luther, Scripture itself remained the final authority, but this did not eliminate all appeal to the fathers, the creeds, and the decisions of the church. Reading Scripture is a fellowship activity in which the voices of those who have read before us need to be heard attentively.  Source: https://www.crossway.org/articles/what-sola-scriptura-really-means/

Finally, here is an extract from an article on the Lutheran view of Sola Scriptura and Tradition:

Sola Scriptura in Lutheran form is not against tradition per se.  While some brands of Christianity might insist that if it’s not in the Bible then it’s not Christian, Lutheran theology understands that a tradition is allowable when (a) it is not contradicted by scripture, (b) it serves a purpose that is scriptural, and (c) it is not enforced as a pre-condition for Christian unity.  It is nonetheless possible to assert the principle of Sola Scriptura in a manner similar to the bumper sticker that says: “The Bible Says It, I Believe It, That Settles It.”  However, a Lutheran theological approach resists simplification.  For Lutheran Christians, reading the Bible does not mean setting aside critical thinking skills. Source: https://lutherantheology.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/a-brief-introduction-to-sola-scriptura/

To answer your question, I agree with Martin Luther who said the truth of Scripture comes first and that Scripture is the final authority.  Yes, the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation as it says in 2 Timothy 3:16-17:

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.  (KJV but took the liberty of replacing ‘throughly’ with thoroughly)

However, that does not mean we have to disengage our intellects or refuse to acknowledge biblical teachings (traditions) that have been handed down from the early church fathers who were taught by Jesus’ disciples.
I’m now going to track down that bumper sticker.


Was the Trinity still a Trinity when Jesus died? Christians believe a few basic things:

God exists as Three Persons in One Being
Jesus died on the cross (and rose again)
Jesus was God.

During #2, however, there seems to be a bit of a problem.  How is that any part of God died on the Cross?  For the period of time that Jesus was dead, was the Trinity actually a Trinity?  And how is this reconciled with the fact that patripassianism is considered heresy by Nicene Christians?

Note, this question assumes that AffableGeek's answer in What is the basis of the view that Jesus was separated from the Father and Holy Spirit upon death?
is understood as "true" for the parties in question.  Given this understanding, a good answer should indicate how the Trinity is maintained in light of it.

Jesus Christ, on earth, was the incarnate Word: the Second Person of the Trinity, the Son. His earthly body and the soul which animated it were both at once human and divine.
To say “God died” actually denies the human soul and its continued existence after the death of the body. Even though Jesus’ body died, his soul did not — or what hope is there for the rest of us?
His body died, but his soul — with its divine nature as well as human — continued its existence. The Word did not die. Indeed, not only did the Word not die, but he descended to hell. The gates of hell in Mt 16:18 are important because they could not contain him.
The Catholic Catechism puts meat on the bones of this answer:

625 Christ's stay in the tomb constitutes the real link between his passibleA state before Easter and his glorious and risen state today. The same person of the "Living One" can say, "I died, and behold I am alive for evermore":465

God [the Son] did not impede death from separating his soul from his body according to the necessary order of nature, but has reunited them to one another in the Resurrection, so that he himself might be, in his person, the meeting point for death and life, by arresting in himself the decomposition of nature produced by death and so becoming the source of reunion for the separated parts.466

626 Since the "Author of life" who was killed467 is the same "living one [who has] risen",468 The divine person of the Son of God necessarily continued to possess his human soul and body, separated from each other by death:
By the fact that at Christ's death his soul was separated from his flesh, his one person is not itself divided into two persons; for the human body and soul of Christ have existed in the same way from the beginning of his earthly existence, in the divine person of the Word; and in death, although separated from each other, both remained with one and the same person of the Word.469
627 Christ's death was a real death in that it put an end to his earthly human existence. But because of the union his body retained with the person of the Son, his was not a mortal corpse like others, for "divine power preserved Christ's body from corruption."470 Both of these statements can be said of Christ: "He was cut off out of the land of the living",471 and "My flesh will dwell in hope. For you will not abandon my soul to Hades, nor let your Holy One see corruption."472 Jesus' Resurrection "on the third day" was the proof of this, for bodily decay was held [by the people of the time] to begin on the fourth day after death.473

A passible: able to suffer [from Latin passio, suffering]
465 Rev 1:18.
466 St. Gregory of Nyssa, Orat. catech. 16: PG 45, 52D.
467 Acts 3:15.
468 Lk 24:5-6.
469 St. John Damascene, De fide orth. 3, 27: PG 94, 1097.
470 St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theol. III, 51, 3.
471 Is 53:8.
472 Acts 2:26-27; cf. Ps 16:9-10.
473 Cf. I Cor 15:4; Lk 24:46; Mt 12:40; Jn 2:1; Hos 6:2; cf. Jn 11:39.


Is a Catholic annulment divorce in a Catholic way? During an interview with America and La Nación – Argentina’s leading daily, in a response to a question ,  Cardinal Walter Kasper said

  This marriage was a reality, and to say it was canonically null and
  void [... is to say it’s] divorce in a Catholic way, in a
  dishonest way.

The full exchange of that section

  Q. Some have proposed to have an easier and quicker process of annulment of marriage. The Pope has now set up a commission to look at
  the annulment process.

  A. Well, there are situations in which such annulments are helpful and
  can be made. But take the case of a couple who are ten years married
  and have children, in the first years they had a happy marriage, but
  for different reasons the marriage fell apart. This marriage was a
  reality, and to say it was canonically null and void does not make
  sense to me. This is an abstract canonical construction. It’s divorce
  in a Catholic way, in a dishonest way.

The question is: is a 'Catholic annulment' divorce the Catholic way?

The answer will start with the correct terminology and definition, before continuing to explain from Catholic teaching what exactly is 'Catholic annulment' and how and why it is not divorce.

The short answer is "no," an annulment is not a Catholic divorce.
Although the term "annulment" has come into common use, it is somewhat misleading, since it makes it seem as if an existing marriage is "annulled" or "cancelled." In fact, Church law does not use that term, but instead contemplates a declaration of the nullity (or non-existence) of a marriage. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains:

For this reason [i.e., lack of freedom in giving marriage consent] (or for other reasons that render the marriage null and void) the Church, after an examination of the situation by the competent ecclesiastical tribunal, can declare the nullity of a marriage, i.e., that the marriage never existed. In this case the contracting parties are free to marry, provided the natural obligations of a previous union are discharged (No. 1629).

The Church, basing itself on passages such as Matthew 5:31-32, Matthew 19:9, Mark 10:2-12, Luke 16:18, Romans 7:2-3, 1 Corinthians 7:10-15, and 1 Corinthians 7:39, claims that it has no power to dissolve marriages that are both sacramental and consummated. (See below.)
It is important to note that there the Church actually does contemplate the possibility of dissolving certain marriages under some circumstances: specifically, marriages that lack one or both of these characteristics just mentioned—marriages that are either non-sacramental, not consummated, or both. According to the Code of Canon Law,

Can. 1141 A [sacramental] marriage that is ratum [i.e., validly contracted] et consummatum can be dissolved by no human power and by no cause, except death.
Can. 1142 For a just cause, the Roman Pontiff can dissolve a non-consummated marriage between baptized persons or between a baptized party and a non-baptized party at the request of both parties or of one of them, even if the other party is unwilling.
Can. 1143 §1. A marriage entered into by two non-baptized persons is dissolved by means of the Pauline privilege in favor of the faith of the party who has received baptism by the very fact that a new marriage is contracted by the same party, provided that the non-baptized party departs.
§2. The non-baptized party is considered to depart if he or she does not wish to cohabit with the baptized party or to cohabit peacefully without affront to the Creator unless the baptized party, after baptism was received, has given the other a just cause for departing.

A declaration of nullity is very different from the dissolution of marriage contemplated in these canons. The dissolution of marriage could be considered a kind of Catholic divorce, as it were, but a declaration of nullity cannot be so described.
Some Background regarding the Sacrament of Matrimony
To understand the difference, it is helpful to understand the basics of the Catholic teaching about marriage.
The Church describes marriage in this way:

"The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament" (Catechism No. 1601, quoting the Code of Canon Law, 1055 § 1, which in turn is inspired by Gaudium et Spes, No. 48).

The important point here is that marriage is a natural institution that existed prior to the sacraments. However, the Church claims, Jesus elevated marriage to a sacrament, which means that it gives grace to those who participate in it, especially those graces necessary to make the marriage a loving, life-long union.
It is precisely the sacramental character of marriage that makes a sacramental and consummated marriage absolutely indissoluble:

This unequivocal insistence on the indissolubility of the marriage bond may have left some perplexed and could seem to be a demand impossible to realize. However, Jesus has not placed on spouses a burden impossible to bear, or too heavy - heavier than the Law of Moses. By coming to restore the original order of creation disturbed by sin, he himself gives the strength and grace to live marriage in the new dimension of the Reign of God. It is by following Christ, renouncing themselves, and taking up their crosses that spouses will be able to "receive" the original meaning of marriage and live it with the help of Christ. This grace of Christian marriage is a fruit of Christ's cross, the source of all Christian life (Catechism No. 1615, emphasis added).

A marriage is considered consummated if the couple has performed the conjugal act together. It is sacramental if it is contracted by two baptized persons; non-sacramental otherwise (Canon Law, 1055 §2). If a marriage is both sacramental and consummated it is considered ratum et consummatum. It is this last type of marriage that is absolutely indissoluble (as the canon cited above states).
A couple enters a marriage through something called "matrimonial consent," popularly called the "exchange of vows" (although in Church law a "vow" is something specific that does not include matrimonial consent). For Catholics, this consent must be witnessed by an authorized sacred minister (a priest or deacon with the necessary "faculties" or permission), a requirement called the "canonical form." (Note that non-Catholics are not bound by this requirement; moreover, in emergency situations, non-authorized clerics and even lay persons may be the witnesses.)
Grounds for the Declaration of Nullity
As mentioned above, a consummated marriage between two baptized persons (i.e., a consummated, sacramental marriage) cannot be dissolved for any reason.
What happens, however, is that a number of factors may arise that make it so that a marriage was never contracted in the first place. These fall into two general categories: impediments and defects of consent.
Impediments
An impediment is some extrinsic situation that makes it impossible for a marriage to be contracted at the time of the exchange of consent.
For example, someone who is already in a previous marriage cannot contract another one at the same time. (Someone in a valid sacramental, consummated marriage can never contract another marriage until his spouse dies.)
This impediment stems from the very nature of marriage, however, the Church has imposed other impediments on its members in order to protect the dignity of the Sacrament of Matrimony. For example, the following situations cause an impediment from contracting marriage:

Murdering someone in order to marry that person's spouse. (The murderer is only impeded from marrying that spouse.)
Attempting marriage with someone who has received Holy Orders (a deacon, priest, or bishop), or who has pronounced his solemn or perpetual vows.
Attempting marriage without following the canonical form (as described above).
Attempting to marry a non-baptized person.

(Note that a marriage between a Catholic and a non-Catholic Christian is not impeded; also the impediments mentioned in numbers 3 and 4 are readily dispensed with. See Canons 1083-1094 for specifics.)
Defects of Consent
Another way that a couple might fail to contract a marriage occurs if there is some defect in the matrimonial consent. For example,

If one or both of the spouses enters the marriage by force or through fear.
If one or both have insufficient use of reason (e.g., small children, severely mentally handicapped persons, or persons in a coma).
Those unable to assume the obligations for psychological reasons (a severe inability to make a permanent commitment, for example).
Exclusion of an essential characteristic of marriage (indissolubility, unity, exclusivity, openness to children) on the part of either.
Error regarding the person (i.e., you thought you were marrying John but it was really Dennis).

There are many others. (See Canons 1095-1107.)
When a tribunal (basically a court) examines a marriage case, it checks to see whether one or more of these conditions is met. If it can be proven that such is the case, then it will give a verdict of invalid. Marriage, however, always enjoys the favor of the law, and so if there is insufficient evidence, or if the evidence shows positively that both parties were free from impediment and gave a valid consent, then it will give a verdict of valid.
As can be seen, this procedure is very different from that followed by civil courts, which simply grant a dissolution of marriage (i.e., divorce).
The only analogous procedure in the Catholic Church is that which grants, under certain circumstances, the dissolution of a marriage that is either non-sacramental or non-consummated (or both), as mentioned.
Regarding the Opinions Expressed by Cardinal Kasper
In the interview, the cardinal says, according to the original poster,

But take the case of a couple who are ten years married and have children, in the first years they had a happy marriage, but for different reasons the marriage fell apart. This marriage was a reality ...

The statement is somewhat problematic, because here "marriage" is taken in two subtly different ways. There is the marriage bond, which is effected at the moment of consent, and cannot be broken (at least in sacramental, consummated marriages) until the death of one of the spouses; and there is the lived reality of the spouses in question.
The marriage bond either comes into existence, or it does not. As mentioned, it comes in existence when a couple free from impediments validly exchanges matrimonial consent. It becomes absolutely unbreakable once the marriage is consummated.
The lived reality of the marriage, however, may or may not proceed well. A number of factors may cause it to "fall apart." Nevertheless, if the marriage bond is already in existence, the spouses have an obligation to respect it. Although for legitimate reasons such spouses may separate, at the very least neither one may attempt a new union with another person.
(It is important to mention at this point that separated couples are not prohibited from receiving the Sacraments, including Communion. It is only persons who attempt remarriage while ineligible who are so prohibited.)
In pastoral practice, the fact that the lived reality of a marriage has "fallen apart" may very well be a sign that there were conditions impeding the existence of the marriage bond. It is precisely the function of a marriage tribunal to investigate such conditions.
On the other hand, if the marriage bond never came into existence, then in fact a couple in this circumstance has lived a only a putative marriage, even if the situation has lasted for many years. (It must be stressed that the Church makes absolutely no moral judgement on couples in this situation; it is assumed that they acted in good faith.)
Hence, when the cardinal calls the granting of a declaration of nullity after many years of putative marriage a kind of "Catholic divorce," he does not mean that in a technical way. He is suggesting that many declarations of nullity of this kind are dishonest, because they seemingly disregard the lived reality, the many years of what appeared to be normal married life. (This is, however, Cardinal Kasper's personal opinion and not the Church's official position on the matter.)


What is the origin of the Devil's red pointy costume and pitchfork? So, biblically, Satan comes as "an angel of light." and yet, in the popular imagitation, he is usually wearing a red costume with a pointy tail, a sharp beard, and a pitchfork.

When and how did this characterization develop?

These attributes are a bizarre combination of images, some inherited from classical mythology, that don't particularly belong together (though there is a reason behind all of them, and even a smidgen of Scriptural support). Our modern image is a blend between:

Satyrs, the lust-filled tempters (goat legs, horns, beard)
Pluto, ruler of the Underworld (pitchfork)
Fairly generic colour imagery (red and black)
The mediaeval bestiary (bat wings)

In more detail:

Cloven hooves, horns, tail, shaggy legs and pointed beard - These are the attributes of fauns or satyrs. Compare - though perhaps not if at work, due to goat penis - this image from Wikipedia, a plate from c.520-500 BC. Satyrs are generally associated with lust, barbarity, and bad behaviour, more or less because goats are randy, willful, and eat all your food.. Thomas Boys (1792-1880), writing in Notes and queries, 5 November 1859, suggests the link is with the Hebrew se'irim (hairy wild beasts, probably the object of pagan worship) in Isaiah 13:21, 34:14, etc. In the Septuagint these are daimonia (demons!) and English translations like the KJV often use "satyrs". There may also be some sheep-and-goats connection going on.
Pitchfork - This comes from Pluto/Hades, the Greek god of the underworld. While his usual attribute is a sceptre, indicating his sovereignty, this was sometimes depicted as a bident or two-pronged pitchfork (for reasons that we're not really sure about). His brothers Poseidon and Zeus also used forked weapons - in some sense they mirror one another, as rulers of their respective realms. In the post-classical era, the bident became part of the standard representation. Satan got the same tool because he was put in the same role as Pluto.
For the colour, the devil is not invariably red in mediaeval imagery - in Chaucer, he's green! - and the most common colour is black. Grimm (Deutsche Mythologie) attributes this to the association of the devil with darkness in general, as God is associated with light (most famously in John 1). The night also suggests hiding and secrecy. This has classical precedent - Pluto again - but the notion is pretty generic. Meanwhile, red means blood, violence, and passion. Red-haired people were unfortunately often considered "evil" because of this connection, and Judas was usually shown with red hair. It is also the colour of fire and the New Testament considers hell to be fiery. There's the red dragon in Revelation 12:3 just to cement it further.
Bat wings, at least, are not classical. In the Middle Ages, the devil was depicted with a wide variety of monstrous attributes, indicating that he was unnatural and cursed. Bat wings are one example, and of course bats are pretty inherently spooky, since they are scary-looking creatures of the night. Jeffrey Burton Russell (Lucifer: The Devil in the Middle Ages, Cornell University Press, 1984) says that these wings first appear in the twelfth century, as a corrupted version of (feathered) angel wings.
Russell's general chronology has the 'monstrous' devil image appearing first, thanks to the third-century Desert Fathers. After a fad for 'humanoid' devils (ie, Satan disguising himself as a normal-looking human) from the sixth to eleven centuries, these dominated for the rest of the Middle Ages. They have not wholly disappeared, as a glance at the nearest death metal album cover will confirm, though the wings are the only monstrous feature to be really ubiquitous now.

This particular combination has become more and more "standard". Of course, it is helpful for the viewer to have some standardization, so that we can instantly recognize who in the painting is meant to be Satan. But even this collection of attributes allows for some diversity in interpretation: one can draw a caricatured or cartoon Satan, or an imp, or a Miltonic anti-hero.


What were the godparent requirements back in the 1960s? My mother was baptised in the Catholic Church in the 1960s.

I received information that her godfather (her uncle on her father's side) might not have been Catholic but rather Anglican. Could an Anglican stand as godfather in a Catholic Church? Has this practice changed over the years?

TL;DR: An Anglican is neither then nor today permitted to be godparent at a Catholic baptism.

The then actual Code of Canon Law 1917 (Codex Iuris Canonici, CIC) says:

Can. 765 CIC/1917 Ut quis sit patrinus, oportet:
[...]
2° Ad nullam pertineat haereticam aut schismaticam sectam, [...];
(my translation)
can. 765 In order to be godparent, it is required:
2° He belongs to no heretical or schismatical sect, [...];

In the former terminology the Church of England is a heretical and schismatical sect (we now use other terminology). So an Anglican were not able to be godparent in a Catholic baptism.
This requirement did not change with the reform of the Code 1983:

can. 874 § 2 CIC/1983 A baptized person who belongs to a non-Catholic ecclesial community is not to participate except together with a Catholic sponsor and then only as a witness of the baptism.

The reason for this is also given:

can.  872 CIC/1983 Insofar as possible, a person to be baptized is to be given a sponsor who assists an adult in Christian initiation or together with the parents presents an infant for baptism. A sponsor also helps the baptized person to lead a Christian life in keeping with baptism and to fulfill faithfully the obligations inherent in it.

This function cannot be fulfilled by someone who does not hold the whole Catholic faith and is not in full communion with the Church.
By the way: This rule cannot guarantee that there were and are no Anglican godparents in reality. The priest should check this, but maybe not everyone does this or he just ignores the rule.


Was Abraham justified by faith alone or works also? I ask this question in this forum as I am seeking the truth.
a. I have always been taught that faith in Jesus and his sacrifice saves me from sin.
b. I listen to a lot of Rabbi's and learnt that Sin-offering is only for Unintentional sins also no one can die for another person's sins
The Christian faith is tied to faith in Jesus and lay the foundation with the statement that Abraham was blessed because of his Faith and not the circumcision / Law.
My view is Obeying the Law is what brings us close to G-d so he can bless us as he did to Abraham.
Paul makes this assertion about faith.

In Romans 4:3 Paul says “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”.
Later in Romand 4:10 he establishes that since the faith came before circumcision, the circumcision was a sign/seal and faith was key.
In Romans 4:14 Paul says that if following the law could achieve this promise then faith is worthless.
Lastly in Romans 4:16 Paul says because Abraham was promised to be the father of many nations, we as gentiles inherit the same promise by the faith that Abraham had.

Question: Is Paul saying that Abraham saw the promised fulfilled by faith alone or by having faith and obeying the law?
Genesis 18:18 Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him. 19 For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing what is right and just, so that the Lord will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him.”
Genesis 22:18 and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me.”
Genesis 26:4 I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and will give them all these lands, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, 5 because Abraham obeyed me and did everything I required of him, keeping my commands, my decrees and my instructions.”
James 2:20 You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? 21 Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.
23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. 24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.

All above verses clearly show that faith alone does not work but you need to obey G-d

It's easy for a person to say that they have faith. It's another to prove it. Abraham had faith, and he proved it through his obedience.
As you may be familiar, there are two kinds of faith:

Dead Faith.
Perfect Faith.

Dead faith is defined as faith without works.

James 2:17 & 14

17Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.14What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?(Holy Bible: New King James Version. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1982.)

James tells us that such faith cannot save a person. Hence, what a person requires for salvation is true faith or perfect faith.
Perfect faith is defined as faith coupled with works.

James 2:22

22Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?(Holy Bible: New King James Version. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1982.)

In such a way, we can determine if a person has faith by their works. Faith and works are both needed. One who believes also works.
However, with the changing of the priest comes the changing of the law.

Luke 16:16

16"The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it.(Holy Bible: New King James Version. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1982.)

Heb. 7:12

12For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law.(Holy Bible: New King James Version. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1982.)

In the Christian Era, those who believe are no longer justified by the Law of Moses.

Acts 13:39

39and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.(Holy Bible: New King James Version. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1982.)

Rom. 3:28

28Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.(Holy Bible: New King James Version. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1982.)

What is observed by those who believe is now the Law of Christ.

John 8:31

31Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, "If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed.(Holy Bible: New King James Version. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1982.)

Gal. 6:2

2Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.(Holy Bible: New King James Version. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1982.)

This is now the work that must be coupled with faith.

This is the viewpoint of the Church of Christ.


Are there published testimonies from Christians with a diagnosed personality disorders like psychopathy about their experience of sanctification? Some personality disorders like psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder are considered by clinicians to be difficult if not impossible to treat. Wikipedia summarises the difficulties with treating psychopathy as follows:

Psychopathy has often been considered untreatable. Its unique characteristics makes it among the most refractory of personality disorders, a class of mental illnesses that are already traditionally considered difficult to treat. People afflicted with psychopathy are generally unmotivated to seek treatment for their condition, and can be uncooperative in therapy. Attempts to treat psychopathy with the current tools available to psychiatry have been disappointing. Harris and Rice's Handbook of Psychopathy says that there is currently little evidence for a cure or effective treatment for psychopathy; as yet, no pharmacological therapies are known to or have been trialed for alleviating the emotional, interpersonal and moral deficits of psychopathy, and patients with psychopathy who undergo psychotherapy might gain the skills to become more adept at the manipulation and deception of others and be more likely to commit crime. Some studies suggest that punishment and behavior modification techniques are ineffective at modifying the behavior of psychopathic individuals as they are insensitive to punishment or threat. These failures have led to a widely pessimistic view on its treatment prospects, a view that is exacerbated by the little research being done into this disorder compared to the efforts committed to other mental illnesses, which makes it more difficult to gain the understanding of this condition that is necessary to develop effective therapies.

Christians believe however that there is no class of person that is beyond the hope of the Gospel, and that when a person is united to Christ and indwelt by the Holy Spirit, God begins the process of their sanctification, which will be completed in the resurrection. Christians should therefore be increasingly empathetic people as God teaches us to love others with his overflowing love.
Personality disorders like psychopathy are characterised by reduced or in severe cases seemingly non-existent empathy for others. While we may not have developed any psychotherapeutic strategies for teaching those with personality disorders to genuinely love others, God can accomplish what is impossible for us. So I was wondering if there are any Christians who have been clinically diagnosed with a personality disorder like psychopathy or antisocial personality disorder who have written or given spoken testimonies about their experiences of the power of God to sanctify and transform their lives, and whether that sanctification has included an increased sense of empathy?

Here is the testimony of David Wood, a formally anti-social-disorder-diagnosed atheist turned Christian.
Here is a variation of his testimony given to an audience, in 23:30 he states his formal diagnosis as anti-social personality disorder made by the mental hospital he was put into.


Is Lutheran confession necessary for salvation? From what I understand...

Although there are major differences, Lutheran confession and Catholic confession are similar.

Catholicism teaches that one must confess mortal sin in order to be restored to friendship with God (salvation).

Does Lutheranism teach that confession of mortal sin is necessary for salvation, and if so why?

I am a confirmed Lutheran, and in Confirmation, we are taught that when we ask Christ to be our personal savior, the Holy Spirit has already worked on our hearts to allow us to open it. Asking for Jesus to be our Savior requires that we acknowledge our sinfullness and our inability to pay the price for our sins without accepting His blood sacrifice. We must confess that we are sinful to be accepted into heaven.

We are also taught that Jesus died once to forgive all of the sins of those who believe, so if you sin after you ask Christ into your heart, you are still forgiven, as your salvation is secure. So, if someone dies before confessing their sins since the last time they asked for forgiveness, but in their hearts they love Jesus as their savior, that doesn't affect their salvation.

When you say friendship with God, I think of fellowship, sort of like a spiritual conversation. Even when we have salvation, if we continue to dwell in our sins and refuse to ask for forgiveness, we are not in fellowship with God. Salvation is the presence of the Holy Spirit in our hearts. When we sin and don't confess it individually, we don't lose the Holy Spirit or salvation, but we choose to ignore God's friendship for the moment.


Difference in Hebrew between חֹ֔שֶׁךְ (ḥō·šeḵ) and וְחֹ֖שֶׁךְ (wə·ḥō·šeḵ) I was wondering if anyone would be able to provide illumination on the difference between the following Hebrew words. Both utilize the same Strong's definition # 2822.

ḥō·šeḵ | חֹ֔שֶׁךְ | Reference example: Isa 45:7

wə·ḥō·šeḵ | וְחֹ֖שֶׁךְ | Reference Example: Ge 1:2

Are these the exact same word? Does the inclusion of "we" in "wehosek" changing the meaning at all?

Thank you!

khoshekh - חשך means "darkness"

vi'khoshekh - וחשך means "and darkness"

Remembering the following common conjunctions will be useful:

ו - and
ה - the
מ - from
ב - in
ש - that

For example, if I say, "bread and water from Christ", it would be

לחם ומים ממשיח

Lekhem vi'maim m'mashiakh


According to Catholicism, why does Paul spend so much time arguing that the law doesn't apply, when Jesus seems to indicate that it does? Jesus in Matthew 5:17,

  Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Jesus in Luke 16:16,

  It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law

Meanwhile, Paul spent his entire ministry arguing for the futility of the Law. cf the letter to the Galatians.

This appears to be a contradiction: Paul appears to be teaching that the law doesn't apply in any way, while Jesus appears to be teaching that it still applies down to the smallest detail.

How does Catholic teaching resolve this apparent contradiction?

(Scoped to Catholicism to avoid the truth question problem).

Acording to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (as usual, emphasis is mine):

577 At the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount Jesus issued a solemn warning in which he presented God's law, given on Sinai during the first covenant, in light of the grace of the New Covenant:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets: I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law, until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

So far, so good: it is as the OP has commented. Jesus himself says that he has come to "fulfill" and not to "abolish" the law.

578 Jesus, Israel's Messiah and therefore the greatest in the kingdom of heaven, was to fulfill the Law by keeping it in its all embracing detail — according to his own words, down to "the least of these commandments". He is in fact the only one who could keep it perfectly. On their own admission the Jews were never able to observe the Law in its entirety without violating the least of its precepts. This is why every year on the Day of Atonement the children of Israel ask God's forgiveness for their transgressions of the Law. The Law indeed makes up one inseparable whole, and St. James recalls, "Whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it."

Here the Church points out that no one, save the Son of God, was able to keep all of the law, and the Jewish ceremony of Yom Kippur testifies to that. At the same time, the Law is whole and indivisible: there cannot be multiple levels of compliance with the Law.

580 The perfect fulfillment of the Law could be the work of none but the divine legislator, born subject to the Law in the person of the Son. In Jesus, the Law no longer appears engraved on tables of stone but "upon the heart" of the Servant who becomes "a covenant to the people", because he will "faithfully bring forth justice". Jesus fulfills the Law to the point of taking upon himself "the curse of the Law" incurred by those who do not "abide by the things written in the book of the Law, and do them", for his death took place to redeem them "from the transgressions under the first covenant".

Through Jesus's death, the Perfect Sacrifice, the Law is fulfilled, and thus the penalty for failing to uphold the Law is paid by Him. Thereafter, those who believe in Him can point to that Sacrifice as reparation for their transgressions of the Law.

581 The Jewish people and their spiritual leaders viewed Jesus as a rabbi. He often argued within the framework of rabbinical interpretation of the Law. Yet Jesus could not help but offend the teachers of the Law, for he was not content to propose his interpretation alongside theirs but taught the people "as one who had authority, and not as their scribes". In Jesus, the same Word of God that had resounded on Mount Sinai to give the written Law to Moses, made itself heard anew on the Mount of the Beatitudes. Jesus did not abolish the Law but fulfilled it by giving its ultimate interpretation in a divine way: "You have heard that it was said to the men of old. . . But I say to you. . ." With this same divine authority, he disavowed certain human traditions of the Pharisees that were "making void the word of God".

Jesus did not abrogate the Law, but fulfilled it, by going above the conventional Rabbinic interpretations of Scripture, but by teaching them directly. His teachings are fully compatible with Mosaic Law, but are above them as perfectly realised expressions of the will of God.

582 Going even further, Jesus perfects the dietary law, so important in Jewish daily life, by revealing its pedagogical meaning through a divine interpretation: "Whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him. . . (Thus he declared all foods clean.). . . What comes out of a man is what defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts. . ." In presenting with divine authority the definitive interpretation of the Law, Jesus found himself confronted by certain teachers of the Law who did not accept his interpretation of the Law, guaranteed though it was by the divine signs that accompanied it. This was the case especially with the sabbath laws, for he recalls, often with rabbinical arguments, that the sabbath rest is not violated by serving God and neighbor, which his own healings did.

Here, we are reminded of the instances in the Gospels where Jesus seems to invalidate or abrogate Mosaic Law, but instead perfects it, returning it to its original spirit.
And because the observance of the letter of the Law interfered with its spirit, St. Paul reasoned that the Gentiles should not be forced to uphold it. Recall that St. Paul himself observed the precepts of the Law just as much as when he persecuted Christians (cf. Phillipians 3), as he was Hebrew himself, but that the insistence in following Jewish customs might cause Gentiles to deviate from Jesus's teachings to Moses's, which would be putting the cart before the horse (cf. Acts 15).
Thus the Church sees no contradiction in Jesus's position that he fulfilled the Law and Paul's position that following the Law is not necessary for justification in Christ.


Moses' age when before the burning bush I am trying to find Moses’ age when he was standing before the Burning Bush before delivering the Israelites from slavery. Later in Scripture it says he was 80 years when he first spoke to Pharaoh. Does scripture give any idea how old he was before the Burning Bush, or he was also around 80 years old at that time?

Scripture tells us Moses was 40 when the Egyptian struck the slave:
Acts 7:22-29

  22 And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and in deeds. 23 And when he was full forty years old, it came into his heart to visit his brethren the children of Israel.

And then...in Acts 7:30

  And when forty years were expired, there appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai an angel of the Lord in a flame of fire in a bush.

In Exodus 7:7, we see the age at which Moses (and Aaron) when they go to Pharaoh:

  Moses was 80 years old and Aaron 83 when they spoke to Pharaoh..."

So Moses was 40 when he killed the Egyptian, and 80 at both the time of the Burning Bush and the meeting with Pharaoh.


Eastern Orthodoxy: What is the 'nous' and how is it distinguished from your mind and the rest of your spirit? Basically, this question is two-fold:

Give me a good explanation of what the 'nous' is and what it is not, especially compared to the mind and the other components of the spirit, from the Eastern Orthodox standpoint.
What techniques have been used and are excepted by the Eastern Orthodox for recognizing when the nous is at work vs. other components of the spirit and body (how to I recognize the nous at work within myself?).

Answers should be backed by references to what theologians and Saints of the Eastern Orthodox Church have taught/written on the subject.

If you are using the word theologian in the traditional sense, I'm not sure if Frederica Mathewes-Green counts (I won't judge her) but I can tell what she has to say on the topic in Welcome to the Orthodox Church.

I don't have the book with me or I'd quote it. However, she says the mind has two gears in which it can operate. In one, it is producing information by engaging in analytical thinking. In the other (the nous) it is receiving information and experiencing reality directly.

For example, take Sherlock Holmes. He uses powers of physical observation to gather facts and then use deductive "fleshly reason" to analyze these facts and draw conclusions. On the other hand, St. Mary of Egypt knew everything about Fr. Zosimas as soon as she laid eyes on him (possibly before, I do not know).

While Sherlock had to think in order to learn about others, St. Mary was of such purity that she simply experienced Fr. Zosimas and immediately experienced his entire life as well.

Everyone experiences things and gains insight by the nous in the same manner as St. Mary.  When I return home from work, it's difficult to look at my children and not admire them simply and without contrivance. However, doing so teaches me nothing about them because sinners such as myself see through a glass darkly while the glass of St. Mary was polished, clear, and shining.

Frederica says that we can only use one of these gears at a time and that, as soon as you begin critically evaluating something, you stop experiencing it. This does not mean the nous is a magical device which, upon our access and after much striving, will immediately grant us all knowledge.

Anytime you stop analyzing and start experiencing, you are using your nous. The difference between ourselves and a great saint is that our nous is dirty and darkened and theirs is full of light. Also, that we tend toward neglect of it and exercise of the analytical mind.

There are of course many other mental faculties such as will, emotion, etc.


What is the earliest point in history where the cross icon started showing up on artifacts related to Christianity? I can’t imagine the cross would have become an art-piece while the Romans were still killing Christians. The cross symbol during the persecutions must have in some way seemed similar to the Nazi symbol of the swastika during the death concentration camps, but later (unlike the swastika) it became a good symbol of Christ’s atonement and resurrection.  I was wondering when it actually became a Christian icon. Of course I understand from the Bible that the icon was immediately gloried in, but the cross as a doctrine did not necessarily turn into popular art right away, or did it? When did it show up on artifacts?

I do not associate any particular meaning to the cross as an icon myself; this is more of a general curiosity question.

Wikipedia says:

  However, the cross symbol was already associated with Christians in the 2nd century, as is indicated in the anti-Christian arguments cited in the Octavius[6] of Minucius Felix,