What is the "gospel" supposed to mean? What is the gospel supposed to mean? In what ways can it be used? What do Christians generally mean when they use the term "gospel"?

The word "gospel" is the Old English word for "good news" or "glad tidings" and has several different uses. It comes from the Greek word εὐαγγέλιον, euangelion (eu- "good", -angelion "message"). As an adjective, it is used in gospel choir or gospel music, perhaps to refer to the African American spiritual Christian hymn. As a noun, it is used in the phrase "to preach the gospel" or "to share the gospel", which means to evangelise. Evangelism is interpreted by many Christians to be a good thing, because they may say:

The purpose of the gospel is to win souls to Christ.
The purpose of the gospel is to enter the kingdom of God in God's plan or make life on earth as if it were the kingdom of God when it would be fully realized.
The gospel is to help human beings become the most fully alive that they can be.
The gospel books is to describe what Jesus has done on earth and how his works are significant to Christians, giving Christians a new identity apart from Judaism, and emphasizing especially on the significance of the resurrection.

To outsiders of the faith, it just means to convert to Christianity.

Upon conversion to Christianity, it is expected that the person would be baptized. The means of baptism, however, varies from denomination to denomination. Refer to the conversation between Nicodemus and Jesus about baptism in John 3:1-10.

In short, there are two ways that gospel may refer to: (1) the act of converting to Christianity or (2) the life of the ideal Christian. Plus, the life of the ideal Christian may be a method to evangelism, an attempt to convert non-Christians into the Christian faith by making the Christian faith sound very attractive. Refer to "lifestyle evangelism".


Why does Mosaic Law insist on primogenitur even when the dad despises the first born son's mother? If a man has two wives, one of them loved and the other disliked, and if both the loved and the disliked have borne him sons, the firstborn being the son of the one who is disliked, then on the day when he wills his possessions to his sons, he is not permitted to treat the son of the loved as the firstborn in preference to the son of the disliked, who is the firstborn. He must acknowledge as firstborn the son of the one who is disliked, giving him a double portion of all that he has; since he is the first issue of his virility, the right of the firstborn is his.
  (Deuteronomy 21:15-17)

Why does the writer assume that like or dislike of the wife will map neatly to like or dislike of the son? In my experience and reading, this is not necessarily the case.

In case you're wondering, the line he is not permitted to treat the son of the loved as the firstborn in preference to the son of the disliked does, in fact, strongly imply that he is expected to wish to do this. Otherwise, the regulation prohibiting it would not be necessary.

This Mosaic Law on family inheritance is borne out of the story of Jacob and Joseph.

As you may remember, Jacob loved Rachel, and worked 7 years for her uncle, Laban, in order to be able to marry her.  Sadly, Jacob must have gotten really drunk, because of the day of his wedding, he finds out that Laban has tricked the trickster, and he's ended up being married to Rachel's older sister, Leah.  This being the day of polygamy, Laban says "Hey - don't worry! Just give me another 7 years, and you can have Rachel."

As a dad whose first daughter is named Rachel, I can understand why Jacob would worked 14 years as a bargain. But I digress.

Once Jacob has the two wives, the baby-making war begins. God sees Leah's sorrow and devotion, and so opens her womb first.  Jacob's first-born son, Rueben, should, as the first born son, have all the privileges. But, the truth is that Jacob loves Rachel, not Leah. As the story continues, Leah keeps popping out the little ones, but Rachel can't seem to make a baby.  Much fuss ensues, and like any good modern reality series goes, Rachel gets Jacob to make babies with her maid, then Leah does the same thing, and before you know it, Jacob has a lot of boys - but Rachel is still not pregnant.

Then, finally, the big day arrives.  Rachel gets pregnant, and Jacob is way, way, happy.  The boy, Joseph, quickly becomes Jacobs absolute favorite.  Hands down. In fact, Jacob loves Joseph so much that he gives him a technicolor coat and arranges for Andrew Lloyd Webber to write about him nearly 4000 years later. Well, we all remember what happens from there - big brothers get angry, sell Joseph off into slavery, and pretty much fill out the rest of Genesis.

  (Incidentally - bonus points if you know who Rachel's only other boy is.  That's right - Benjamin - the son of his right hand. Rachel dies in childbirth, and when Joseph later uses a ruse to put his only full brother in prison, the other boys realize this would pretty much kill their dad, hence the hysterics to get him back.)

This part of the covenant then, is as much symbolic as it is practical.  It is direct, received wisdom from the experience of Jacob and his favorite sons.

Is it possible for a despised wife to have a beloved son? Sure.  But we don't have any biblical stories about those prior to this law. The more practical point is "Don't gip your boys in the will," but the precedent that backs it up has its roots in history.


How can God be three persons? How can God be three Persons when He is defined by thousands of singular personal pronouns, which define ONE Person?

The problem is not existential but definitional. God exists and is a certain way. We can define "person" to exclude God's Trinitarian nature as a logical possibility, or we can define "person" to include both human persons and the three Divine persons. The Church has chosen to base the definition of person on God and humanity, not on humanity alone. It recognizes multiple aspects of personality as already understood by human philosophers in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, where they are shown in Scripture to be distinct persons.
At the same time, there is a unity among the persons of the Trinity that no group of human persons has between them. Our unity as individuals does not extend to incorporate other persons. God's does. That makes God very different from us, in a category by Himself.
The Bible says that when a man and women marry, they become one flesh. This unity is limited but real. Perhaps if Adam and Eve had not eaten from the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil before consummating their marriage, human marriages, families and even all of humankind would have had such unity as God always has? This insight gives us the answer.
How can God be three persons yet be one God? Because He never sinned. Sin brings division. Division cannot occur unless there was a preexisting unity.
Unity is the original state of being. Our separation from one another not just in personhood but in love, communion and fellowship, that is what needs explanation.


What was Brigham Young's teaching regarding Adam being God? I understand that Brigham Young, the second Prophet of the LDS Church, taught what is known as the Adam-God doctrine for much of his tenure as Prophet of the Church.

What are the specifics with regard to this teaching and where is it recorded?  How long was it taught?  Is it still part of Mormon Scripture/teaching/doctrine today?

This idea spawns from a number of statements that Brigham Young purportedly made, both in public and in private. For example, he was recorded as having said something like this in the Journal of Discourses, but the LDS Church does not officially accept any of the Journal of Discourses or cite it for doctrine because of erroneous scribing and other things.

Additionally, it is evident that the original, doctrinal meaning of which Brigham was intending to speak, was lost from the time it was received by revelation from God to the time it was transmitted, or transcribed, erroneously.

Immediately upon understanding that many were confused on this teaching or idea, Brigham spoke again on the matter. Here, President Young reports that he inquired of this doctrine to Joseph Smith, his predecessor to the presidency, and, startled by the confusion from his statements, attempts to clear up some misconceptions.

Finally, on 19 Feb 1981, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve named Bruce R. McConkie wrote a letter to Eugene England on this topic, stating,

  "Yes, President Young did teach that Adam was the father of our
  spirits, and all the related things that the [polygamous] cultists
  ascribe to him. This, however, is not true. He expressed views that
  are out of harmony with the gospel. But, be it known, Brigham Young
  also taught accurately and correctly, the status and position of Adam
  in the eternal scheme of things. What I am saying is that Brigham
  Young, contradicted Brigham Young, and the issue becomes one of which
  Brigham Young we will believe. The answer is we will believe the
  expressions that accord with the teachings in the Standard Works."

(Note that we must still be careful extrapolating context when the audience was a specific person, not the world in general. It may not necessarily be the official view of the LDS Church.)

Clearly, a human made an error, but never has this doctrine been officially an accepted part of LDS teachings. In fact, today (I know from experience), this idea of "Adam being God" is not tolerated in Church schools or settings at all.

Enemies of the Church (see this page for documentation of this controversial yet accurate term; also see comments) will quickly take a glitch in history and blow it out of proportion, which understandably will cause others to believe that the prophet taught this "for much of his tenure as Prophet of the Church." At this point, I think the mis-understanding is clear.

The Godhead is made up of God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. Jesus Christ is the Son of God who lived, died, and was resurrected, completing the Atonement for mankind. That is the LDS doctrine on that matter, and certainly is the most central and prominent feature of Mormon doctrine.

(I have also used FAIR's Wiki page on this topic as a source here.)


When and why did the Catholic Church first start issuing annulments? I understand that the Catholic Church issues annulments in place of divorces under certain circumstances.  When did this practice first begin and under what was the reasoning given for it and its distinction from divorce?

Definition: An annulment doesn't dissolve a marriage; an annulment is a solemn pronouncement that there never was a marriage contract (as explained in the pronouncement) and, therefore, what was perceived as a marriage was in fact null.

Why: In order for a marriage to be valid, it cannot be null.  If a marriage is ruled to be null then the couple can either try to fix the issues regarding the cause of nullity or must separate (which typically already happened).

When: Presumably this practice was with the Church from the beginning. The reason it was so rare previously is that Catholics used to be taught their Faith before seeking to get married, and as part of their marriage preparations they used to be "annulment proofed" both by the priest insuring the couple are mature, sane, morally capable and aware adults, as well as the custom of "reading the bands" which, among other things, was a moral requirement for anyone who knew of an impediment for the couple to get married (which would be grounds for nullifying the attempted wedding contract) to come forward and make it known to the priest.

These days, with inadequate education in the Faith, general immaturity of the populace in general and people seeking to get married in particular, and no moral requirement to make impediments known to the clergy, it can only follow that the number of annulment cases will skyrocket.


Where in the Bible does the greeting ("Dominus Vobiscum") used at Mass come from? Is the phrase "The Lord Be With You"  and the response "And with your spirit" directly pulled from the Bible or where did that come from?

It is directly pulled from the Bible.

Based on my answer to this question: As far as scripture goes, the salutation is from Ruth 2:4 and 2 Chronicles 15:2 in the Vulgate.

In Ruth, the phrase appears in the sentence, "Et ecce ipse veniebat de Bethlehem dixitque messoribus: 'Dominus vobiscum'. Qui responderunt ei: 'Benedicat tibi Dominus'." ("[Boaz himself] came from Bethlehem and said to the harvesters, 'The Lord be with you!' and they replied, 'The Lord bless you!'").

II Chronicles recounts that Azariah said, "Audite me, Asa et omnis Iuda et Beniamin! Dominus vobiscum, quia fuistis cum eo. Si quaesieritis eum, invenietur a vobis; si autem dereliqueritis eum, derelinquet vos." ("Hear me, Asa and all Judah and Benjamin! The LORD is with you when you are with him, and if you seek him he will be present to you; but if you abandon him, he will abandon you.")

The phrase additionally appears in Numbers 14:42: "Nolite ascendere: non enim est Dominus vobiscum: ne corruatis coram inimicis vestris.”


What was Martin Luther King, Jr.'s understanding of salvation? I've been reading A Testament of Hope, which is a compilation of sermons by the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. I also know he's a Baptist. (I even got to stand and preach for a minute in his pulpit last year!)

What I haven't seen in these sermons is an emphasis on the Gospel, but I'm not sure if that was a selection bias (since the book really is there to focus on his Social Gospel), or if that really is indicative of his preaching style.

Is there a good sermon that represents his view of salvation? (An altar call? A good theology? Bueller, Bueller!)

For King, individual salvation in some ways resembles that of historic Protestantism – man is a sinner needing salvation, which is by faith – but differs in other ways, such as in his rejection of a physical resurrection of believers.  This understanding fits neatly in his broader understanding of salvation, which applies not just to individuals, but to societies as well.
Individual salvation
Steps of individual salvation
King was uncomfortable with orthodox and neo-orthodox understandings of original sin, but he did accept that men are sinful and that they therefore need salvation:

The first thing necessary for ind. salvation is an honest recognition of one's estranged and sinful condition. One can never be saved until he recognizes the fact that he needs to be saved. ("What Shall We Do to Be Saved?", 1948–54)

King identifies faith, particularly an active faith, as saving:

Faith is fundamentally an act of commitment to that which is believe to be most valuable. Religiously speaking it is total surrender to God. Basically faith is not belief, (although belief is an element in faith) but an act.
For this reason faith is always significant. It is necessary for the very living of life. Even reason itself is a venture of faith. When faith is properly interpreted it is true that salvation is by faith. (Qualifying Examination Answers, Systematic Theology, 1953)

He sees repentance as crucial in bringing about fellowship with God:

Repentance is an essential part of the Christian life. Through repentance man is converted and brought into fellowship with God. ("How Modern Christians Should Think of Man", 1949–50)

For him, the "new birth" is a result of these steps:

Regeneration mean a new life that results after conversion and repentance. It is a new set of values. It is a new adjustment to God, man, and self. It is what Jesus referred to in the Fourth gospel as the new birth. (Qualifying Examination Answers, Systematic Theology, 1953)

Hope of individual salvation
For King, the hope of this individual salvation was not physical resurrection, as taught in the historical church and among the fundamentalists of his day.  Indeed, he rejected the idea of a physical return of Christ, a day of judgment, and the physical immortality of believers.  Instead, he expected an immortal "spiritual existence" of some kind, and described the future kingdom of God as follows:

Whether it come soon or late, by sudden crisis of through slow development, the kingdom of God will be a society in which all men and women will be controlled by the eternal love of God. When we see social relationships controlled everywhere by the principles which Jesus illustrated in his life—trust, love, mercy, and altruism—then we shall know that the kingdom of God is here. ("The Christian Pertinence of Eschatological Hope", 1949–50)

Collective salvation
With that understanding of the hope of salvation and the kingdom of God, it's easy to see how it connects to a concept of collective or societal salvation.  In the sermon "What Shall We Do to Be Saved?", King explicitly stated that "the process of social salvation is the same as the process of individual salvation."
Here's one example of how the two connect.  Earlier we saw that King referenced the new birth of John 3 as being "a new set of values" and "a new adjustment to God, man, and self."  For him, this lesson was just as applicable to a society as to an individual, as we see in the following excerpt from a speech entitled "Where Do We Go From Here?" (1967):

Jesus looked at him and said, "Nicodemus, you must be born again." [applause]
In other words, "Your whole structure (Yes) must be changed."
[...]
What I'm saying today is that we must go from this convention and say, "America, you must be born again!" [applause] (Oh yes)

Note that I've corrected obvious spelling errors in the quoted material.


For those who view Israel typologically, what is the significance of the 12 tribes? Many Christians view the historical nation of Israel that we read about in the Old Testament as a Divinely designed type of the Church, and their inheritance in the Promised Land as a Divinely designed type of the New Earth (commonly called "heaven").

My question is: Assuming this typology is correct (i.e. Divinely intended), what is the significance of there being 12 tribes, each with their own region of the Promised Land? (For example, does this suggest each church will have its own domain in the New Earth, or does it speak more generally to the acceptability of diversity within the Church, or something else?)

I'm looking for standard views, not personal ideas, so a survey of the most prominent views (2-3 maybe) would be most helpful.

Certain numbers had symbolic significance to the people of that era. Numbers like 7 and 12 had connotations of wholeness or completeness. (Not completely unlike modern-ish phrases like going the "whole 9 yards"). Bible numbers

The 12 tribes were established from the 12 sons of Israel/Jacob, who was himself the son of Isaac, who was the promised son of Abraham, who was the "father" of faith.

The most obvious interpretation of the symbolism then is that all sons of faith in the promise will receive an inheritance. As explained by Paul in Romans 4:16,

  "That’s why the inheritance comes through faith, so that it will be on
  the basis of   God’s grace. In that way, the promise is secure for all
  of Abraham’s descendants, not just for those who are related by Law
  but also for those who are related by the faith of Abraham, who is the
  father of all of us."

Paul indicates the symbolism was to preserve the truth of salvation being available to all sons of faith the promise of salvation through Christ, and completely unrelated to ethnic race or culture (as the Jews mistakenly believed).


Were the indulgences in the Catholic Church always to be followed by Confession? Wikipedia's article on indulgences says that indulgences in the Catholic Church, especially prior to Reformation, were granting people only the remission of punishment, but not the remission of guilt. It says that the guilt would only be remitted through Confession (Sacrament of Penance). Was Confession in those times a necessity that by all means was to follow after an indulgence was obtained? Would the obtained indulgence lose its power if Confession did not follow?

Without going to confession, one could not gain an plenary indulgence. However that is not required for gaining a partial indulgence.

  To gain indulgences, whether plenary or partial, it is necessary that the faithful be in the state of grace at least at the time the indulgenced work is completed. - THE GIFT OF THE INDULGENCE

Indulgences are not feats of magic and in order to gain any indulgence certain rules must be met. It has been the constant teaching of the Church that mortal sins must be confessed in the Sacrament of Penance. Indulgences have never nor could not ever substitute this fact.

  A plenary indulgence means that by the merits of Jesus Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the saints, the full remission of the temporal punishment due to sacramentally forgiven sins is obtained. The person becomes as if just baptized and would fly immediately to heaven if he died in that instant. A partial indulgence means that a portion of the temporal punishment due to forgiven sin is remitted. Partial indulgences are received either by doing some act to which a partial indulgence is attached (e.g. praying a partially indulgenced prayer), or by the incomplete fulfillment of the conditions attached to a plenary indulgence. - What is an Indulgence?

An indulgence does not forgive the guilt of sin, nor does it provide release from the eternal punishment associated with unforgiven mortal sins. The Catholic Church teaches that indulgences relieve only the temporal punishment resulting from the effect of sin (the effect of rejecting God the source of good), and that a person is still required to have his grave sins absolved, ordinarily through the sacrament of Confession, to receive salvation. Similarly, an indulgence is not a permit to commit sin, a pardon of future sin, nor a guarantee of salvation for oneself or for another. Ordinarily, forgiveness of mortal sins is obtained through Confession (i.e., penance or reconciliation).

It seems that from the very conception of indulgence, the Sacrament of Reconciliation was an integral part of the gaining of an indulgence. Only valid sacramentally confessed mortal sins can be forgiven by a confessor. No works (no matter how holy) can take the place of the need to confess one's sins to a priest.

  The earliest record of a plenary indulgence was Pope Urban II's declaration at the Council of Clermont (1095) that he remitted all penance incurred by crusaders who had confessed their sins in the Sacrament of Penance, considering participation in the crusade equivalent to a complete penance.

The actual act of going to confession does not have to be on the same day as the day in which one has completed the indulgenced act. Contemporary norms say that it should be carried out 20 days before or after the indulgenced act is done. In days of old, it was 8 days (before or after).

  It is appropriate, but not necessary, that the sacramental Confession and especially Holy Communion and the prayer for the Pope's intentions take place on the same day that the indulgenced work is performed; but it is sufficient that these sacred rites and prayers be carried out within several days (about 20) before or after the indulgenced act. - THE GIFT OF THE INDULGENCE


According to the LDS, do Michael and Gabriel have resurrected bodies? According to Mormon doctrine, when Christ was resurrected, so were many of the saints that had died:

  "And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept
  arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went
  into the holy city, and appeared unto many." (Matthew 27:52–53)

  "Verily I say unto you, I commanded my servant Samuel, the Lamanite,
  that he should testify unto this people, that at the day that the
  Father should glorify his name in me that there were many saints who
  should arise from the dead, and should appear unto many, and should
  minister unto them. And he said unto them: Was it not so?" (3 Nephi
  23:13)

Is it safe to assume that all the prophets that died before Christ were resurrected at this time? And that Adam (Michael), and Noah (Gabriel), and John the Baptist, etc., all have resurrected bodies now?

I would say it is not safe to assume they are not, but I think we only know for sure of John the Baptist, Peter and James as having resurrected bodies, for the reason that they layed their hands on Joseph Smith's and Oliver Cowdery's heads to transfer the priesthood (see D&C 13).

A scripture that seems to indicate most, if not all, ancient prophets and many others are also resurrected is

D&C 138:50-53

  50 For the dead had looked upon the long absence of their spirits from
  their bodies as a bondage.

  51 These the Lord taught, and gave them power to come forth, after
  his resurrection from the dead, to enter into his Father’s kingdom,
  there to be crowned with immortality and eternal life,

  52 And continue thenceforth their labor as had been promised by the
  Lord, and be partakers of all blessings which were held in reserve for
  them that love him.

Just for reference, the bible also speaks of resurrection of saints together with Jesus,

Matthew 27:52-53

  52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which
  slept arose,

  53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into
  the holy city, and appeared unto many.


Are Catholics expected to bury amputated body parts in a cemetery? I remember seeing, some forty years ago, the Catholic family of a cancer patient burying his amputated leg in the local cemetery. I do not know if Christians all over the world still practice such burials. My question is: are there instructions in the Catholic Canon Law or in other texts making it mandatory for the faithful to bury the body parts amputated on account of accident or surgery, in a consecrated cemetery?

In a word, no. There is no particular Church teaching regarding what to do with amputated body parts, exported organs, and so forth. Hence, proper medical protocols should be followed (including cremation, especially if that is the safest or least costly option).

It should be observed that body parts and organs that have been removed from a living body are no longer part of that body, and may be disposed of as medical waste.

The Church teaches that a human cadaver (i.e., what remains when a human being has died) should be treated with respect; and Catholics are not to treat the cadaver in such as way as to place in doubt the resurrection of the body. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it,

  The bodies of the dead must be treated with respect and charity, in faith and hope of the Resurrection. The burial of the dead is a corporal work of mercy; it honors the children of God, who are temples of the Holy Spirit (No. 2300).

Note that the Church does not forbid cremation any longer1:

  The Church permits cremation, provided that it does not demonstrate a denial of faith in the resurrection of the body (No. 2301).2

In any case, the prohibition against cremation applied to whole cadavers, never to exported body parts.

1 The Church did forbid cremation in the past, because it was largely practiced by those who denied the resurrection of the body—indeed frequently in order to ridicule that doctrine.

2 It should be observed that the corruption of the body—by decomposition or by burning—does not pose any particular problem for the doctrine of the resurrection of the body. The body, which is fundamentally the “matter” that is “informed” by the soul, will simply be reconstituted. Since the soul is the same, and it is the soul that gives  the body its “form,” the resurrected body is the very same body as before (albeit glorified).


Did the Community of Christ denounce the Book of Mormon? Most Mormons seem to be under the impression that the Community of Christ agreed to denounce the Book of Mormon as scripture in order to be accepted into the World Council of Churches. It's obvious that this isn't true, because the CofChrist names the Book of Mormon as accepted scripture in their Basic Beliefs.

Did the Community of Christ denounce the Book of Mormon? If not, then why are the LDS under the impression that they did?

The Community of Christ has not denounced the Book of Mormon. According to Wikipedia the Community of Christ views the Book of Mormon as an additional witness of Jesus Christ and publishes two versions of the book through its official publishing arm, Herald House, all of which is inconsistent with a view that the Community might have denounced the book in order to win favour with the World Council of Churches.

However, the Community of Christ is uncertain about the proper use of the Book of Mormon and even its historicity. In 2001, President W. Grant McMurray reflected on increasing questions about the Book of Mormon, while stating that in speaking on behalf of the community he did not speak for each person within our community:

  "The proper use of the Book of Mormon as sacred scripture has been under wide discussion in the 1970s and beyond, in part because of long-standing questions about its historicity and in part because of perceived theological inadequacies, including matters of race and ethnicity."

At the 2007 Community of Christ World Conference, President Stephen M. Veazey ruled as out of order a resolution to "reaffirm the Book of Mormon as a divinely inspired record". In so doing he stated:

  "While the Church affirms the Book of Mormon as scripture, and makes it available for study and use in various languages, we do not attempt to mandate the degree of belief or use."

So, the Book of Mormon remains part of Community of Christ scripture, although it is said to be a longstanding tradition that belief in the Book of Mormon is not to be used as a test of fellowship or membership in the church. Belief by some members of the mainstream Mormon Church (Latter Day Saints) that the Community of Christ has officially denounced the Book of Mormon probably results from a misunderstanding, not only of the comments by McMurray and Veazey, but because many members of the CoC are said to believe the Book of Mormon was written by Joseph Smith himself, and not translated from the writings of ancient Americans.


How can Christians be assured they are truly saved and that Jesus won't say "Depart from me I never knew you." on judgement day? In the Bible, it says God knows everything about us- intimately. So, if He KNOWS us, how could He NOT know us and tell us to depart from Him? I'm so confused. I thought I was saved, been to church, pray, speak to Jesus and pray to Him CONSTANTLY. But lately I've been feeling abandoned by Him and it has caused me to completely lose faith in Him. Feels like He couldn't be farther from me and like He doesn't love me. I have been so hard on myself and really spent a lot of time in introspection trying to figure out what I could be doing wrong. I'm not perfect, but I've left so much of my sinful ways behind. I also wonder if I truly am saved. Do Christians absolutely HAVE to be baptized? Maybe that's my problem- maybe I need to get baptized(?) I just don't understand why I'm feeling this way. I hope someone can give me answers to all my questions because I'm desperate for answers. TIA and God bless.

Your "tell us to depart from Him" comes from Matthew 7:23.
But notice what the beginning of the speech says:

“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
“Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’
“And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’
— Mat 7:21–23

In other words, it's not enough to simply go through the motions of being a Christian; one must truly do the will of the Father.
To expand on @adam's answer, about believing and loving, there is one obvious sign that we are following that advice:

… But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”
— Mat 19:17

If you love Me, keep My commandments.
— Jhn 14:15

He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.
— Jhn 14:21

If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love.
— Jhn 15:10

For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome.
— 1Jo 5:3

Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.
— Rev 14:12

Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.
— Rev 22:14


Where does this Martin Luther quote come from? "Sin is essentially a departure from God." -Martin Luther

Which work does this quote come from?

According to God is for Us: 52 Readings from Romans, by Simon Ponsonby: "During the Diet of Augsburg Luthor wrote to Melancthon, 'Sin is essentially a departure from God.'" Quote is credited in that book to Watchwords for the Warfare of Life, Vol. 1, T. Nelson and Sons.

eBook URL: God is for Us


Can man judge whether God is fair? Over and over I hear people pronouncing in one way or another that God is "not fair"*. Sometimes this is stated directly, other times indirectly as in "that doesn't seem fair, therefore God must not be that way."

My question is, are we humans in a position to judge whether God is fair or not? If so what standard do we use to define fair? How should Christians handle issues of "fairness" and how should we respond to these accusations against God?

* Often with the conclusion: therefore I will not believe in him.

No. God's ways and thoughts are so much above ours it's difficult to understand.

  Isaiah 55:8-9 (NLT)
   8 “My thoughts are nothing like your thoughts,” says the Lord.
        “And my ways are far beyond anything you could imagine.
   9 For just as the heavens are higher than the earth,
        so my ways are higher than your ways
        and my thoughts higher than your thoughts.


What were the scriptural arguments used for modern western racism? A blight on the modern western church is that the bible has been used by certain people to justify racism--specifically dark-skinned people's inferiority and light-skinned people's superiority. Some unfortunately smart people found passages of scripture to support this viewpoint and created compelling arguments.

What are these arguments for racial superiority and from which scriptures do they come? And I'm not just asking about slavery! For example, how did the American church support ideas like segregation and Caucasian superiority into the '30s and '40s and '50s, long after the days of emancipation?

Great question! Here are reasons starting from Southern Christian slave-owners to modern times.
First, the long-used King James bible never condemns "slavery". Rather, it provides guidelines for this "slavery" and encourages "slaves" to embrace their "bondage".

Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as
worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not
be blasphemed. Those who have believing masters must not be
disrespectful to them on the ground that they are members of the
church; rather they must serve them all the more, since those who
benefit by their service are believers and beloved. Teach and urge
these duties. (1Tim. 6:1-5)
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in
singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched,
and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will
of God from the heart. (Eph. 6:5-6)
Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction
in every respect; they are not to talk back, not to pilfer, but to
show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be
an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior. (Titus 2:9-10)
Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not
only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. For
it is a credit to you if, being aware of God, you endure pain while
suffering unjustly. If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong,
what credit is that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer
for it, you have God's approval. (1Pet. 2:18-29)

If you just read the surface level English, it seems as if God is okay with slavery. The issue become much trickier when you read the Bible in it's original language.

"In the ancient world, service and slavery were closely related, so much so that one can scarcely distinguish the one from the other. The original words used for “servants” and “service” carry a variety of meanings between which it is not always easy to determine what is meant (All the Trades and Occupations of the Bible 1969, p. 197).

Apologeticspress.org does a fine job of elaborating more on the subject:

Arndt and Gingrich documented that the Greek word doulos meant “slave,” but that it also was used “in a wider sense” to denote “any kind of dependence.” In 2 Corinthians 4:5, the apostles are called the douloi (plural of doulos) of the Christians. Christ took on the form of a doulos, as stated in Philippians 2:7. Paul designates himself as a doulos of Christ in Romans 1:1, Philippians 1:1, Galatians 1:10, and numerous other passages (1967, pp. 205-206). The term can describe a person who is obligated in some way, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, to another person. Due to this broad use, various translations have employed a wide range of words to render the meaning of doulos in English. Using Romans 1:1 as a case in point, the NKJV has “bondservant,” the New Living Translation has “slave,” the KJV and ASV have “servant,” and the Darby Bible has “bondman.”
The Hebrew word ebed is similar to the Greek doulos, in that it can be
translated as “slave” or “servant.” In Exodus 4:10, Moses referred to
himself as the “servant” (ebed) of God. Abraham called himself the
ebed of the angels who came to visit him in Genesis 18:3. In Genesis
39:17-19, Potiphar’s wife described Joseph as the Hebrew ebed, and
Genesis 24:2 talks about the eldest ebed in Abraham’s house, who
“ruled over all he had.”

Because slavery was profitable, it makes sense that some Christians would be pre-disposed to slavery- but perhaps some did search the scriptures. The King James version never explicitly condemns slavery.
Some slave-owners said that the Bible supported slavery.
Kenneth Stamp, in The Peculiar Institution writes:

"...when southern clergy became ardent defenders of slavery, the master
class could look upon organized religion as an ally ...the gospel,
instead of becoming a mean of creating trouble and strive, was really
the best instrument to preserve peace and good conduct among the
negroes."

Twisting the Bible has been very profitable to many different groups historically, and it was no different with slaveholders.
Slaves were taught the scriptures in a way so that they had a sufficient fear of Him and of course, knowledgeable about the "slave" verses. Thus, some of them saw their slavery as their cross they must bear in order to receive God's favor.
Additionally, there's the whole Cain/cursed descendent of Noah thing.

"Cursed be Canaan; lowest of slaves shall he be to his brothers" (Gen 9:25)

I had presumed that this was only a thing of history, but this article
says that the whole Cain thing is exactly what's happening in some churches still today. (I emailed the pastor about whether or not this article is true. I will update this article if I get a reply)
Additionally, it was said that different races should not mix. For a very long explanation of the arguments against interracial marriage, visit this site.
Here is a small excerpt from the article:

Interracial marriage is discouraged throughout the Bible. In the book
of Ezra, the Israelites repented of their abandonment of God. As part
of this repentance they pledged to end their interracial marriages
according to God's will:
“We have been unfaithful to our God by
marrying foreign women from the peoples around us. But in spite of
this, there is still hope for Israel. Now let us make a covenant
before our God to send away all these women and their children, in
accordance with the counsel of my lord and of those who fear the
commands of our God. Let it be done according to the Law. Rise up;
this matter is in your hands. We will support you, so take courage and
do it.” (Ezra 10)
A similar experience is recorded in Nehemiah 13:
“Moreover, in those days I saw men of Judah who had married women from
Ashdod, Ammon and Moab. Half of their children spoke the language of
Ashdod or the language of one of the other peoples, and did not know
how to speak the language of Judah. I rebuked them and called curses
down on them. I beat some of the men and pulled out their hair. I made
them take an oath in God’s name and said: ‘You are not to give your
daughters in marriage to their sons, nor are you to take their
daughters in marriage for your sons or for yourselves.’” Other
prohibitions against interracial marriage can be found in Exodus
34:12-16, Joshua 23:12, and Deuteronomy 7:3: “Do not intermarry with
them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters
for your sons.”
Some have claimed the Bible's ban on interracial marriage was based on
religion rather than ethnicity, and that the sole purpose of the
prohibition was to keep the people pure of idolatrous influence.

The article is saying that God has sanctioned the pureness of races and therefore they should not mix with a white-supremist attitude.
This subject is further explained here:

The theology of Donny Reagan, pastor of Tennessee’s Happy Valley Church of Jesus Christ, should inspire Anderson to think again. “If corn was raised in a certain way, yellow corn, don’t mix it with white corn. If you do your mixing, you can’t bring yourself back again,” Reagan warned in a sermon recorded last year at his 600-member church in Johnson City, Tenn. Claiming that black athletic stars choose white wives in a willful attempt to make their offspring lighter, Reagan declared, “It’s another defiance of God’s law, it’s a worldly way.”

Summary:
1. The widely and long used KJV does not specifically condemn slavery and has passages that provide guidelines that were twisted to support slavery.
2. The long surviving Curse of Cain/Cursed descendent of Noah belief. (That blacks are cursed by God)
3. The belief that interracial marriage is bad. (with a flavor of white supremacy)


The task of interpreting the Word of God - The Pope CCC Article 2, 100 (Page 35):
"The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him."
What exactly does this mean?  What does interpreting the Word of God imply?

This means that the Magisterium of the Church is used to specify to the People of God and to the world how, exactly, the Word is to be applied to our daily lives:

  The Roman Pontiff and the bishops are "authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach the faith to the people entrusted to them, the faith to be believed and put into practice." The ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him teach the faithful the truth to believe, the charity to practice, the beatitude to hope for.

(Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 2034; the quote is from Lumen Gentium, section 25.)

This echoes and explicates paragraph 890 of the Catechism:

  The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium's task to preserve God's people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates.

In other words, it is the task—the pastoral duty—of the Pope and the other bishops in communion with him to watch over their flocks, to ensure that what the People of God believe and practice is in accord with the Word of God as it appears in the depositum fidei, the "deposit of faith" given us by God through Jesus and the Holy Spirit. To do so, they must pray and think over what the Word means, and what it implies for Catholic life, so that they can pass on appropriate beliefs, practices, and teachings to the Church. This is the "interpretation" mentioned in the Catechism.


When and why did the modern literal 6-Day creation theory become popular? Historically, Creationists tended to fall into two broad categories, those who subscribe to the Day-Age theory (the idea that the days in Genesis 1 represent ages of indeterminate length, not 24 hour periods) or the Gap theory (the idea that between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 was an indeterminate gap, but the days were 24-hour periods).

At least up until WWII, these were the predominant Creationists views, with the idea of a young earth being vehemently attacked even by some Fundamentalists and Creationists.

  Advocates of [creation science] read the first chapters of Genesis in a way that allows for no life on earth before Eden and no death before the fall.
  Until the last few decades most creationists would have regarded such notions as unnecessarily extreme. By the late nineteenth century even the most conservative Christian apologists readily conceded that the Bible allowed for an ancient earth and pre-Edenic life. With few exceptions, they accommodated the findings of historical geology either by interpreting the days of Genesis 1 to represent vast ages in the history of the earth or by separating a creation "in the beginning" from a much later Edenic creation in six literal days.
  -- Introduction to The Creationists, 2nd Edition, 2006, by Ronald L Numbers, p.7

Jump to 2016, and the theory of a literal 6-day creation has become very popular, and is certainly the most talked-about of the creationist theories. In comparison, the Gap and Day-Age theories get much less attention, even being considered heresy (or nearly so) by some literal 6-Day creationists.

What accounts for this change in attitude, and when did it occur?

First of all, the dispute has definitely been around for a long time. Here is a link defending an allegorical day interpretation. It references Origen (not a saint) and St. Augustine:

http://biologos.org/common-questions/biblical-interpretation/early-interpretations-of-genesis

St. Augustine specifically makes the point that there was no sun or earth on the first day, so how could days be counted?

And here is a link using the writings of St. Basil to defend a literal day period for creation.

http://creation.com/genesis-means-what-it-says-basil-ad-329379

The debate clearly existed in the church pretty early on, but it was never accepted as grounds to accuse someone of being a heretic, no councils of the church mention the dispute is what I mean (that I know of).

As for our current state, I think Ross Douthat's book Bad Religion does a good job of addressing this. So I'll sort of paraphrase him and hopefully not oversimplify too much.

In chapter 1 Mr. Douthat points to 2 major movements within Protestant Christianity at the beginning of the 20th century: modernists/accomodationists who want to change the church's doctrines to be more palatable to skeptics and fundamentalists who want to preserve the church's beliefs. Modernists were willing to challenge the inspiration of the scriptures, virgin birth, reality of the miracles of Christ, and even the resurrection and incarnation. Fundamentalists insisted on preserving all these doctrines and that you had to believe these these things to be Christian. The picture given is that some, or most, fundamentalists became overzealous in their defense and strayed into an error of their own by insisting on literal interpretations simply to oppose whatever modern theory they felt threatened them and condemn Christians who entertained them.

He specifically points to the 1920's as when the terms "Evangelical" and "Fundamental" became associated with strict biblical literalism. This decade is when the biblical literalists in Tennessee took the issue to court and attempted to ban evolution from school textbooks and lost.

However, even orthodox Protestants weren't anywhere near uniformly "fundamentalist" in this sense. Some more specific information comes in chapter 4 of the book. In the 40's Fuller Theological Seminary required its students and faculty to affirm that the Bible was as "exact a guide to geology and biology as it was to the history of salvation". However in the 60's the position of most of the faculty and students shifted to limited inerrancy, meaning that the Bible was only inerrant in the realm of theology. 2 professors even published a book with the thesis that the rigid understanding of inerrancy was invented in the 17th century. This triggered a dispute which resulted in the "International Council on Biblical Inerrancy" which defended a strict position, but with allowances. J.I. Packer (supporter of strict inerrancy) is quoted at the council as saying:

  I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture ... but exegetically I cannot see that anything Scripture says, in the first chapters of Genesis or elsewhere, bears on the biological theory of evolution one way or another ... Scripture was given to reveal God, not to address scientific issues in scientific terms

So Mr. Douthat concludes that even though inerrancy was upheld in the 70's its implications were reinterpreted to allow for non-literal understandings and truths.

I suppose that his view can be summarized as fundamentalism rising to answer (badly) the challenges of modern scientific skepticism and liberalism. He even labels fundamentalists as anti-intellectual in some cases.

I wouldn't really point to the 20th century as when fundamentalism kicked off though; remember Galileo was condemned because his views didn't fit with certain literal interpretations that the church had at the time. I would view this literal fundamentalism as more of something that comes in waves, just as liberalism does. The lifetimes of Galileo and Darwin are two big waves that often get talked about in history. The sexual revolution of the 70's was another one.

I would say the currently the literal trend seems to be subsiding. Just the other day my Evangelical friend (who listens to way too many podcasts) noted how allegorical interpretations are becoming more popular. You could even point to Rob Bell as an example of an Evangelical pastor who has some very allegorical (and probably heretical) interpretations.

A real answer to this question probably involves a whole big study of 2000 years of Christianity. I don't necessarily think taking creation as a literal 6 days is bad, but I think that Genesis has some much deeper spiritual meaning that will be missed if it is simply used as a beating stick for more liberal Christians.


How can 1 Corithians 15:3 and Psalms 49:7 be reconciled? In Corinthians 15:3 it states that Jesus died for our sins.

  For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

In Psalms 49:7 it states no man can die for the sins of another.

  No one can redeem the life of another or give to God a ransom for
  them--

These two scriptures seem contradictory to me. How can these verses be reconciled?

In context the scripture reads -

Ps. 49:6-9: “Those who are trusting in their means of maintenance, and who keep boasting about the abundance of their riches, not one of them can by any means redeem even a brother, nor give to God a ransom for him; (and the redemption price of their soul is so precious that it has ceased to time indefinite) that he should still live forever and not see the pit.”

Therefore, in context, no 'imperfect human' can provide the means to deliver someone else from sin and death. His money cannot buy eternal life, and his soul laid down in death, being the wages that are to come to him anyway because of sin, has no value toward delivering anyone.

“In Adam all are dying,” said the apostle Paul. (1 Corinthians 15:22) The ransom thus had to involve the death of the exact equal of Adam—a perfect human. (Romans 5:14) No other kind of creature could balance the scales of justice. Only a perfect human, someone not under the Adamic death sentence, could offer “a corresponding ransom”—one corresponding perfectly to Adam. (1 Timothy 2:6) It would not be necessary for untold millions of individual humans to be sacrificed so as to correspond to each descendant of Adam. The apostle Paul explained: “Through one man [Adam] sin entered into the world and death through sin.” (Romans 5:12) And “since death is through a man,” God provided for the redemption of mankind “through a man.” (1 Corinthians 15:21)

God arranged to have a perfect man voluntarily sacrifice his life. According to Romans 6:23, “the wages sin pays is death.” In sacrificing his life, the ransomer would “taste death for every man.” In other words, he would pay the wage for Adam’s sin. (Hebrews 2:9; 2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Peter 2:24) This would have profound legal consequences. By nullifying the death sentence upon Adam’s obedient offspring, the ransom would cut off the destructive power of sin right at its source.—Romans 5:16.


What are the positions relative to each other in the Catholic church's clerical hierarchy? I sometimes find myself lost in my own church's different levels of clergy and the Catholic church's seems even more complex? What different positions in the clergy exist within the Roman Catholic church and how do they relate to one another in the church's governing structure?

The Catholic Church has the Pope as its head. The basic structure underneath the Pope consists of a number of bishops, each of whom is assisted by a number of priests. Priests, in turn, are assisted by deacons (who are ordained, just as priests are, but who cannot "advance in the rankings" as priests can).

However, there are a number of variances from this, and a lot of details to go into. Are you sitting comfortably? Then I'll begin ...

To understand the Church's governing structure, keep in mind that the Catholic Church is divided up into what are called particular churches. Most of the particular churches govern a specific area (usually called a diocese or eparchy) and are aggregated into a number of what are called a sui iuris ("in its own right") churches; the largest of these is the Latin Church. The various particular churches are each overseen by a bishop. (Some of the heads of the sui iuris churches called the "Eastern Catholic Churches" are given the title Patriarch. For example, the head of the Syriac Catholic Church, who is a bishop, has the title Patriarch of Antioch. The rest of the heads of the particular churches making up the various Eastern Churches are generally called eparchs.) Bishops are appointed by the Pope, with the advice of a dicastery (a standing department in the Vatican) called the Congregation for Bishops; they are ordained priests who are consecrated as bishops either by the Pope himself or by other bishops.

There are some regions of the world which have a fair amount of Catholics, but not enough to bear organization into a diocese led by a bishop. The Pope may organize these into an apostolic prefecture or the slightly more advanced apostolic vicariate, led respectively by a prefect apostolic or the higher-ranking vicar apostolic, an experienced priest—but not a bishop—who is entrusted with the spiritual care of the Catholics in the area. The Eastern Catholic Church equivalent of a vicar apostolic is an exarch.

Since an individual bishop isn't able to minister directly to perhaps tens or hundreds of thousands of people in his church, the Church allows him to delegate certain functions to priests, who (usually) are assigned to local areas, known as parishes, within the particular church. Some of these priests have historically been rewarded for their work by being designated Monsignor by their bishop, a title which doesn't carry any particular increase in rank. Often, as well, priests are assisted in their work by deacons, either transitional deacons who are seminary students studying for the priesthood, or permanent deacons who are ordained to the Order of Deacons, but will not advance to the priesthood.

Since some geographical areas are inevitably more economically and politically important, or simply more highly populated, than others, the dioceses or eparchies—the "particular churches governing a specific area"—are often grouped together into relatively small groups called ecclesiastical provinces, often coincident with political divisions such as states or provinces. Generally, the diocese covering the most important region of an ecclesiastical province will be ranked as an archdiocese (or archeparchy), usually what's called a metropolitan archdiocese, and will be governed by an archbishop—generally also eligible to be called a metropolitan bishop. For example, within the U.S. state of New Jersey, there are five dioceses: the Diocese of Camden, the Diocese of Trenton, the Diocese of Metuchen, the Diocese of Paterson, and the Archdiocese of Newark (the largest of the four cities, and the closest to New York City). A metropolitan archbishop doesn't rank above a bishop, but does have certain types of responsibilities and oversight over the other bishops in the province, who may be known as suffragan bishops.

Many dioceses, as well, have multiple bishops assigned to them—a "main" bishop, and one or more auxiliary bishops. (All the auxiliary bishops are suffragan bishops as well.)

A chorbishop, as I only just now found out, is a rank just below bishop in some Eastern Churches; these men have many of the duties and powers of a bishop, but not all. They are therefore ordained priests as well, but not bishops.

Some bishops are chosen by the Pope to join the group of clergy responsible for the selection of future popes. These are called cardinals. There are three ranks of cardinals: cardinal deacon, cardinal priest, and cardinal bishop. The cardinal bishops are the most senior leaders in the Church after the Pope, and cardinals as a whole rank above bishops. (Not all cardinals actually can select the next pope; cardinals are in office for life, but cannot vote once they reach 80 years old.)

As well as all these (as if they weren't enough!), there are also various religious institutes. These are often governed by a superior (more or less a supreme leader), who may have any of a number of titles. The Augustinians call their superior the Prior General; the Jesuits, the Superior General. These are equivalent to bishops.

Many religious orders are governed locally, organized into abbeys, convents, or priories. They are subject directly to their leader, who is subject (more or less) only to the Pope, and is thus pretty much equivalent to a bishop. This local leader may be an abbot or abbess, a mother superior, or a prior.

There are even more titles that I haven't gone into, but they're generally reserved for specific individuals (such as the senior cardinal-priest in the College of Cardinals, who is known as the protopriest). I won't go into all of those; this post is long enough already.

You mention a few titles which are not (or are no longer) titles of clerical personnel:

Exorcist: Before Vatican II, this was an official position ranking below a priest. Now, it's a function that's exercised by a very few priests—usually only one per diocese or eparchy. The exorcist is responsible for conducting exorcisms. No, not always that kind of exorcism ... but sometimes.
Lector: Again, before Vatican II, this was an official position ranking below a priest, and like exorcist, leading up to ordination. Nowadays, it's a position often assigned to a lay minister.


Why was the Apostle Paul seemingly not that interested in baptizing believers? Paul does not seem to put the same importance on baptism as he does on other things:

  For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. (1 Corinthians 1:17, NIV)

If Paul was so focused on the gospel as it was the means of 'eternal salvation', why put baptism in the back seat of the process? Baptism does generally seem important in Acts and other parts of scripture.

  For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. (1 Corinthians 1:18, NIV)

Why does Paul not think it important to follow up on all his converts and make sure they are properly baptized as though their eternal life depended on it?

1 Corinthians 1:10-14, 16-18 NET I urge you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to agree together, to end your divisions, and to be united by the same mind and purpose. For members of Chloe’s household have made it clear to me, my brothers and sisters, that there are quarrels among you. Now I mean this, that each of you is saying, “I am with Paul,” or “I am with Apollos,” or “I am with Cephas,” or “I am with Christ.” Is Christ divided? Paul wasn’t crucified for you, was he? Or were you in fact baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, (I also baptized the household of Stephanus. Otherwise, I do not remember whether I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel – and not with clever speech, so that the cross of Christ would not become useless.
For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

The ideas in that passage are that each person was boasting about the superiority of their teachings, when all of them were in fact disciples of the same teaching, which was again, an "inferior“  (foolish) teaching. They had absolutely no grounds for boasting, either in terms of uniqueness or superiority.
Baptism is the equivalent of recognising a person can now have table fellowship with  God's People. That status must be maintained, just as the observant Jew needed to maintain his clean status and act to rectify any impurity, whether caused accidentally or through carelessness .

1 Corinthians 5:11New International Version (©1984) But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.
Matthew 18:17 NET If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. If he refuses to listen to the church, treat him like a Gentile or a tax collector.
Acts 8:13, 20-23 NET Even Simon himself believed, and after he was baptized, he stayed close to Philip constantly, and when he saw the signs and great miracles that were occurring, he was amazed.
But Peter said to him, “May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could acquire God’s gift with money! You have no share or part in this matter because your heart is not right before God! Therefore repent of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that he may perhaps forgive you for the intent of your heart. For I see that you are bitterly envious and in bondage to sin.”

In that sense, baptism is an acknowledgement of the suitability of the candidate. The Ethiopian eunuch's request was based on that reasoning.
The Corinthian church had distorted that teaching.


Jesus's growing years Who was Jesus from thirteen (13) to twenty-nine (29) ?

And how did this effect his growth into the man he became?

Any citations of the bible is welcome; but citations are not only restricted to the bible.

As far as biblical references go, I know of nothing other than Luke 2:52:

  Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

Or, in Mark 6:3, early in his ministry, they say:

  Isn’t this the carpenter?

In Luke's gospel they say "Isn’t this the carpenter's son?" but here he is identified not just as being the son of the carpenter but of being a carpenter himself and also that they recognise him - he is not an unknown stranger to them.

Of course, if you turn to extra-biblical sources there are theories in abundance, these include Jesus visiting India, or learning from the druids at Glastonbury.

There are also various non-canonical writings such as the Infancy Gospel of Thomas which tell of him as a child performing various miracles.  This, however, is at odds with John 2:11 which says that turning water into wine at the wedding at Cana was "the first of the signs through which he revealed his glory" which seems to rule out childhood miracles.


Is there a good Swedish Bible Translation that's not the equivalent of the NIV? I have a friend in Sweden who is a new believer and I want to buy him a bible translated in his native language. Unfortunately, the only two translations I've found are the 1917 translation which is expensive and rare, and the more recent which seems to be the Swedish equivalent of the NLT of NIV. Is there an NKJV or ESV equivalent in Swedish?

Thanks in advance. God Bless.

Wikipedia has a list of Bible translations in the Swedish language. There are two types of Bibles:

Official government-sanctioned translations, used by the Lutheran Church of Sweden
Other translations

The 1917 version that you found is most likely the 1917 års bibelöversättning, which is a government-sanctioned translation. The latest government-sanctioned one is the Bibel 2000. Given that it is used by the Lutheran Church of Sweden, which is the largest denomination in the country, you ought to have an easier time finding this version.

Other translations are most commonly available in the New Testament only, but it looks like the Svenska Folkbibeln (Swedish People's Bible) is the most popular non-government modern translation that contains the entire Bible. Wikipedia has an unsourced claim that this translation was commissioned in response to conservative concerns that the Bibel 2000 was strongly influenced by liberal theology and higher criticism, but I couldn't find anything on my own to confirm this (although I'm limited to English sources since I can't read Swedish).*

It does not appear that a Swedish translation to the New King James Version (NKJV), or English Standard Version (ESV), are available. I suspect that is because they are of interest to English language speakers, but less so to Swedish speakers who would prefer a translation from the original languages to their own language.

*As a personal note, I'll say that it's not worth getting worked up over whether a Bible translation is "conservative" or "liberal"; I personally can't tell unless I really search for differences. Just get a Bible that you can find. If your friend attends a church that uses a certain translation, that's an excellent version to pick up, and means they will read the same words in both services and private study.


Do any Christian denominations consider Pontius Pilate as a saint? Do any Christian denominations consider Pontius Pilate a recognized saint, either by canonization or through tradition?

Yes, by the:

Ethiopian Church with a feast day on June 19
Coptic Church with a feast day of June 25

Why?

The above churches believed that Pilate became Christian, was baptized, and even tried to save St. Stephen from being executed, and built a church in honor of Stephen.

Source: Wikipedia on Pontius Pilate

See also: Pontius Pilate, a saint?


To what extent should the Apostles' speech be considered infallible? It is my understanding that all known writings of the Apostles are considered infallible and are Canonical.  However, I am unclear as to what extent recorded speech of the Apostles should be considered inspired.

In Galatians 3:11-13 we have evidence that Peter, an Apostle, is not perfect in his actions. So it seems that, like us, Apostles were subject to sin and error.  What implication, then, does this have on the Apostles' recorded speech?

For example, In Acts 15:19-21, James makes a statement in which he seems to consider eating meat sacrificed to idols a sin (which seems to contradict many of Paul's writings).  Should his statement be viewed as infallible, because he is an Apostle, or is a possible interpretation of the passage that James was wrong?

Answers should assume the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy.

This answer brings up an interesting verse in 1 Corinthians 7, when Paul distinguishes between his words and the Lord's.

  Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife. But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her.

This distinction should, I would argue, is similar to that of papal infallibality. As a human being, the Bishop of Rome is a fallen creature.  As Romans 3:10 would say, "There is none righteous, not one." And, as Jesus said to the Rich young ruler, "No one is good but God alone."  From a pure "perfection" standard, God's word would not allow any man's speech to be perfect. Even Roman Catholic teaching says the Pope is only infallable when speaking ex cathedra, or from God.

Clearly then not all things that the apostles said are thus "infallible," but rather only those things which are "scriptural."  In other words, if they are in line with what God would have had these men say, then they are perfect. If not, they are the words of any other man.  (I'm reminded of a scene from The Robe, in which Peter must remind his church that he is not perfect!)

The question, then, is whether or not the words recorded in Scripture are "perfect" or infallable.  Here, I would point out the exact words of Paul in 2 Timothy 3:16:

  All Scripture is breathed out by God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

Notice my emphasis on profitable. Even Scripture sidesteps the question of infallability over its "usefulness" or it profitability.  Regardless of whether or not the Apostles said the right thing, God uses it to be the exact right thing that is needed.

I believe wholeheartedly in the perfection of Scripture, ala Turretin, et. al - although I've stopped using the term inerrancy myself. Inerrancy says "This conforms to my standard of what is right and wrong."  I say that because in order for something to be "without error" it must be judged, and "I" am the subject of that.  That presupposes that "I" am in a position to judge that. That's a pretty high handed stance for a Christian who believes in the completely supremacy of The Word.

In contrast, the word telos or perfection, is a word that:
a. is in Scripture (see James)
b. keeps God in charge.
Perfect implies, as does 2 Timothy, that a thing perfectly accomplishes that which it sets out to do.  It is need of no judge, because it is by definition perfect.

By that standard, the words of the Apostles, like the words of Scripture themselves, are exactly what God intends for our own reproof, correction, teaching, and training in righteousness.


Why do JW think other faiths are unbelievers? Why do JW think other faiths are unbelievers?

I have a JW friend and we have always respected each others faiths. I would ask Questions about her faith and she would answer, with out getting it getting out of hand. Thank God for our awesome friendship. She is always trying to hook me up with a respectful JW brother, and I am open to the idea (I'm Catholic) because of my great friendship with my friend, but I'm trying to understand what he thinks I don't believe in. I am believer in Christ, and the Good and only GOD. Please help me understand.

I think this is a question of terminology as well as being a question of theology. I’ll try to address both.

The vast majority of branches of Christianity will divide the world up into groups which look roughly like this:

Us (the people who agree with us theologically, and associate with us);
People we disagree with on minor matters;
People we disagree with on fairly major matters, but whom we still accept as Christians;
People who are completely wrong (“Heretics” / “people who claim to be Christian, but aren’t”);
Non-Christians / members of other religions (“people who don’t even claim to be Christian”);
Atheists.

(Many won’t see any need to distinguish between those last two groups, of course.)

One important difference between the Witnesses and mainstream Christianity is the sizes and memberships of the various groups above. Jehovah’s Witnesses are very united, and believe that acting as a group is important. As such, they do not accept the Christianity of anyone outside their faith. At least, not in modern times. They accept that others will have glimpses of the truth, and have said complimentary things about Luther, Calvin, and other luminaries of the Reformation, but they think that since their own organization started God has uniquely blessed it.

As such, the second group (“people we disagree with on minor matters”) is pretty much non-existent to the Witnesses, unless you count the very small differences within the faith. (As I said, the Witnesses are a very united group, but the leadership don’t pin down every single theological question; just most of them. Witnesses can differ from each other on minor matters, but are cautioned not to hold any such belief as an actual teaching, just as a personal hypothesis. That’s acceptable.)

The third group (“other Christians”) is also pretty much non-existent in the modern day. Jehovah’s Witnesses do not accept anyone other than themselves as Christians. (To be fair, other Christian groups usually return the favour.)

While you might expect to fall into that third group as far as the Witnesses are concerned, in fact you fall into the fourth: you would be seen as a member of “Christendom” (this is another word which has a different meaning in Witness theology to its normal geopolitical meaning). “Christendom” (false Christians), non-Christians, and atheists are all lumped together as “non-believers”.

Note that if you were to pursue a romantic relationship with a Witness, this would be regarded as dating outside the faith, becoming “unequally yoked” with an unbeliever, and strongly disapproved of by his fellow Witnesses.

Summary

Theology: Witnesses regard modern-day non-Witnesses as non-Christian.
Terminology: Witnesses lump all non-Witnesses together as “non-believers”, whatever they actually believe in.


Does the Catholic Church teach that the Catholic faith is demonstrably true? Question: Does the Catholic Church teach that the Catholic faith is demonstrably (with certainty) true? Please provide references.

Thanks for any help.

No, not all the truths of the faith are demonstrable.
First Vatican Council, Dei Filius IV canon 1 on faith & reason:

If any one shall say that in divine revelation there are no mysteries, truly and properly so called, but that all the doctrines of faith can be understood and demonstrated from natural principles, by properly cultivated reason: let him be anathema.[Cdl. Manning's transl. of:] Si quis dixerit, in revelatione divina nulla vera et proprie dicta mysteria contineri, sed universa fidei dogmata posse per rationem rite excultam e naturalibus principiis intelligi et demonstrari: anathema sit.

Some truths of the faith cannot be demonstrated, such as the Trinity, although they can be shown not to be contrary to human reason. St. Thomas Aquinas, the greatest Doctor of the Church, said in his Summa Theologica I q. 32 a. 1 c.:

It is impossible to attain to the knowledge of the divine persons of the Trinity by natural reason.
impossibile est per rationem naturalem ad cognitionem Trinitatis divinarum personarum pervenire.

Thus, faith is necessary to understand "what belongs to the distinction of the persons," St. Thomas continues, and "by natural reason we can [only] know what belongs to the unity of the essence [of God]."
See the first chapters of St. Thomas's Summa contra Gentiles book 1, esp. these:

On the way in which divine truth is to be made known
That the truth about God to which the natural reason reaches is fittingly proposed to men for belief
That the truths the human reason is not able to investigate are fittingly proposed to men for belief
That to give assent to the truths of faith is not foolishness even though they are above reason
That the truth of reason is not opposed to the truth of the Christian faith
How the human reason is related to the truth of faith

Even Aristotle realized that not all truths are demonstrable.


How Can I Appropriately Live Life Accordingly to God's Will? I have been struggling for the past five years. My civil rights were violated about three to four times and all being investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I am currently unemployed. I have had no luck in trying to get my portfolio of fantasy novels published either. It is still a professional hobby of mine where I have not earned any money. I am looking for an agent and publisher to no avail. Is this all part of God's will for my life? How do I know if I am living a life according to God's will?

God's will for a specific human life has less to do with what the circumstances of the life are and more to do with how that life responds to the circumstances.  Insofar as God orchestrates or allows the particular circumstances of a life He does so for two main reasons:

In order to give birth to faith,

  The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything.  And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place,  that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, - Acts 17:24-27

or to refine faith,

  Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,  to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you,  who by God's power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.  In this you rejoice, though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been grieved by various trials,  so that the tested genuineness of your faith—more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire—may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ.  Though you have not seen him, you love him. Though you do not now see him, you believe in him and rejoice with joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory,  obtaining the outcome of your faith, the salvation of your souls.

If you have not yet abandoned your own efforts to shape your own life into a life that pleases God then I encourage you to lay everything down at the foot of the cross.  Jesus Christ, the Son of God has lived THE life that pleases God and you are invited to rest from your own efforts and take part in His life:

  because if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.  For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. - Romans 10:9-10

If you are already born again by the grace of God through faith in Jesus, having appealed to God in Christ, trust that God's promise in Christ is to send His Holy Spirit to be in you to guide you into all truth, to testify to you of Jesus (reminding you of everything he said) and to undertake the process of sanctification (which is part of God's will for you).  This sanctification process often takes place in the fires of trial where we learn to subordinate our desires to the desires of God and it is ultimately for our eternal good.

  I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. - Romans 12:1-2

I do not know if God's will for you is to publish fantasy novels or do any other particular thing and you may not currently know either.  Remember that Abraham was called to go to a land that God would show him.  Abraham was the father of Faith precisely because God did not show him first but, rather, called him to walk by faith rather than by sight.  Abraham did and was called God's friend.

This is most often very difficult...no one enjoys discipline at the time (I know that I never have).  God is working to shape us into that which we cannot imagine but that He can clearly see.  Relax into the Potter's hands, struggle to give thanks in all circumstances, and trust in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ.  He will never leave you nor forsake you.


How did Matthew know that Hosea 11:1 was about Jesus? How did Matthew know that Hosea 11:1 was about Jesus?

  “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. (NIV)

Even looking at the context of the verse, I see no clues that this means anything more than the simple fact that God brought the Israelites out of Egypt, freeing them from slavery.

When Hosea 11:1 was written, did people already realize that it was about the messiah, or was Matthew the first person to note it and revealed it for the first time in Matthew 2:13-15?

If it's the latter, how did he discover it? Is it really a prophecy if it's only revealed after it's fulfilled?

If it's the former, how did people know they were messianic prophecies?

“I see no clues that this means anything more than the simple fact that God brought the Israelites out of Egypt, freeing them from slavery.”

There appear to be clues in the context of Hosea 11 and the following verses that allude to more than an act accomplished in history, Jon. Read at least through verse 11.

11 they shall come trembling like birds from Egypt,
    and like doves from the land of Assyria,
    and I will return them to their homes, declares the LORD.

This chapter appears similar to Ezekiel 36-37 and Isaiah 40-55 in that it speaks of prophecies concerning Gods covenant love. Hosea was not only speaking of the history of YHWH bringing Israel out of Egypt but was also pointing to a time when He would again rescue Israel and fulfill His promises to her.

In the time of Jesus I don’t think many Israelites believed God had fulfilled his promises. They were in exile to Rome. They were waiting rescue. They were very possibly waiting for the fulfillment of the Hosea 11 prophecy.
When Jesus comes he seems to be saying through his words and actions, “I am the one you have been waiting for. Through forgiveness of sins and following me, I will save you from exile. I am your King”.
When Mathew quotes Hosea and says in 2:15,

“out of Egypt I called my son”,

he is not simply saying that since Israel came out of Egypt and so did Jesus, that therefore Jesus is the fulfillment of this passage. He is saying that Jesus is the embodiment of all that Israel was waiting for within the context of the promise of this Hosea passage.
N.T. Wright gives a persuasive argument in “The New Testament and The People of God.

“What the early church is saying, when telling the story of Jesus’ resurrection and announcing it to the world as the summons to obedient faith, is that the history of, and promises to, Israel had come true in Jesus, that in his death and resurrection he had inaugurated the real return from that real exile.”  (NTPG chp.13 pg. 400)


Is Roman Catholic reconciliation with the Orthodox likely (or possible)? I have consistently heard rumors that the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics will be reconciling at some point (at least to the point of Catholics being able to receive Orthodox sacraments). Sometimes the rumors are that it will happen during a reigning patriarch, but other voices among the Orthodox have suggested that such a gesture is an impossibility*. So, which is it? Is reconciliation possible (and close), or will things continue as they have for nearly a millennium?

As to the differences from a Catholic man's perspective:

The metaphysical dispute over the Filioque, wherein is asked "whence comes The Holy Spirit"?  A Catholic person says, when reciting the Nicene Creed, that The Holy Spirit "proceeds from The Father and The Son".  Unofficially, this wording brings to mind the theory of procession put forth by St. Augustine (namely that The Father's contemplation of Himself is ontologically creative, becoming The Son; and that The Love between The Father and The Son is similarly ontologically creative, becoming The Holy Spirit).  The Orthodox Church would see this formulation as diminishing the fullness of Godhood of The Holy Spirit, feeling that it subordinates The Holy Spirit to The Son and The Father---that is making Him less than co-equal with Them.  The Catholic Church would deny that this is the intent of the formulation as adopted by Her, although it allows the formulation of St. Augustine as a perfectly valid one.  More fruitful discussions between the two Churches has centered on asking what Each means by "comes" in the question "whence comes The Holy Spirit?"

Furthermore, the Orthodox Church is quite upset that the Catholic Church unilaterally decided to insert "and The Son" into the Nicene creed, when it was not there before.  They believe that modifications to the ancient creeds can only be done through the participation in an Ecumenical Council.  In fact, one of the Popes in the Middle Ages agreed with this complaint from the Orthodox Church, but was ineffective in changing the practice of the West.

On Church governance & the role of the Pope vs. Bishops.  Both Churches could fully agree, in principle, that the Bishop of Rome is "first among equals" regarding his relationship to other Bishops.  But whereas the Catholic Church emphasizes "first" and regards this designation to mean that the Pope has "ordinary and immediate" jurisdiction over every parish (bypassing the Bishops altogether, in principle), the Orthodox Church emphasizes "equals", and thereby would place supremacy over the faithful on their Bishop, regarding the designation "first among equals" as a matter of honour only.  Thus, the Orthodox Church sees the Pope's claim to supreme governance as a power grab which diminishes the dignity and office of the Bishop.  It doesn't help matters at all that, historically, the Orthodox Church has felt slighted, disrespected in their laws and traditions, and imposed upon by the Pope over the centuries.  While the Catholic Church firmly defends the prerogatives of the Pope's power of governance, She denies that such exercise diminishes the dignity and office of the Bishop, and continues to uphold that the office of the Pope (when it comes to governance) is a necessity of the communion of Bishops, and that the Pope is only the "first among equals".  The difference in governance which causes so much ecumenical trouble between these two Churches can be summarized as the difference between a monarchical republic versus a true confederacy.
"Cultural" differences.  For these two Churches to be united, they must agree that they follow the same Faith of times immemorial.  From the Catholic perspective, this is easy enough: except for questions of the filioque, they see themselves as following the same Faith (that is, the same teaching).  On the other hand, the Orthodox Church places a great deal of more emphasis on liturgy as part of Faith than the Catholic Church does.  To the Orthodox Church, if a liturgy is recent, it is inferior.  To them, the best liturgies are the ones that go back to eons ago, and if possible, to the very beginning.  They barely put up with liturgical translations. They see the Catholic Church as having succumbed to the times in adopting novel---and therefore not good---things in their liturgy (beginning with the filioque in the Middle Ages and continuing to the recent changes in their liturgies to make them "more modern").  If the Catholic Church is seen as parochial for trying to keep a semblance of homogeneous liturgical practice by other Christian groups, then they certainly have not taken a good look at the Orthodox Church.  Thus, to achieve union between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, these issues of "culture" wherein the Catholic Church is seen as "modernist" by the orthodox Church must also be resolved.

So, is it likely that these two Churches will reunite?  It is the hope and prayer of every Catholic person that they will.  It should be the hope and prayer of every Christian that 'all [Christians] may be one', such as The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit are.  At the same time, both of these Churches do believe that a union without a consensus on the deep issues that divide them is artificial, and not a real union at all.  Thus, they both believe that they need to work on these fundamental issues beforehand.

And herein lies one of the problems.  For, while the Pope can speak for all Catholic Bishops, ratifying their declarations, there is no one in the Orthodox Church that can similarly speak for everyone.  If, and when, reunification takes place, there will always be a substantial amount of Orthodox Bishops which will renounce the reunion as heretical and will refuse to reunite.

Another problem: there are some teachings that the Catholic Church deems as irrefutable, due to the dogma of infallibility.  To go back on these teachings would amount to a declaration that the Catholic Church is not infallible, which I fear She cannot do.  The best The Catholic Church can do is to recast (re-explain) those same infallible teachings on a new light, perhaps making it logically possible to come to a formulation of the teaching which is also acceptable to the Orthodox Church.  Given that both Churches have very gifted and careful theologians who feel themselves in the right, it is very difficult to see how this might be possible.

THEREFORE, what are the chances that both Churches would unite?  Very unlikely, if you ask me.  History may force them to reunite (and force them to work out those differences), if a world-wide effective persecution of both Churches should occur, but other than that, all we can do is hope and pray.


Does the Bible ever mention atheism and where? Not necessarily the actual word as such. Mostly people are described as chasing after other gods. What about no gods?

There is a lot of talk about Godless men, which would be someone that likely doesn't believe in God or fear God (or any gods) -- usually one or the other.

Psalms 14:1 - The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God."
Psalms 10:4 - The wicked, in the haughtiness of his countenance, does not seek Him. All his thoughts are, "There is no God."
Psalm 36:1 - Transgression speaks to the ungodly within his heart; There is no fear of God before his eyes.

More from this link I found.
Also check this answer.


How did the original texts of the Creed relate Pilate to Jesus' Passion? In the Creed in English we see the mention of Jesus having  suffered and died  'under Pontius Pilate' . In my native language Malayalam, the counterpart reference says ' in the days of Pontius Pilate' and that appears to be a direct translation from Syriac language. My question is: how did the original texts of the Creed relate of role of Pontius Pilate in the Passion and death of Jesus ?

I found an excellent article showing the precursors of the Apostle's creed with translations in the original Greek, Latin, and English.  It appears that the Pontius Pilate reference was unchanged, and the translation variations between "under Pontius Pilate" and "in the days of Pontius Pilate" don't change the meaning, which is simply to fix the historical time of Jesus's suffering aligned to the current governor of the region at the time (just like saying that the atomic bombs were dropped under President Truman), without explicitly laying the blame exclusively on the Roman authorities, the Jewish authorities, or both.

In other words, the creed serves as merely a faith SUMMARY and points us to the Gospels to find out more on how exactly was Jesus condemned to die.  This is because the creed's function was to help believers know the key tenets of the "official" Christian faith so they are not misled by non-orthodox variations ("heresies") that were still competing for allegiance at the time.  Given that the heresies during the first 2 centuries were NOT about how Jews vs. Rome were to blame, but rather the nature of the Trinity, the humanity/dvinity of Jesus, and the status of the Old Testament, etc. I think it's doubtful that the original author of the creed phrased "under Pontius Plate" because they didn't want to accuse Jews anymore of Jesus's death, especially because in later centuries, many Christians DID STILL blame the Jews severely for their role in crucifying Jesus.  See this article for more discussion on the origin of the creed.


Do Catholic priests have to report child abuse confessed in secret? Is there any canon, regulation, norm or diocesan norm which requires priests to report confessions of child abuse?  Are priests obliged to follow laws to this effect?

I'm not asking in regard to child sexual abuse committed by other priests as has been reported in the news over the last decade or so, but the kind of stuff that, if someone came to a physician or a psychologist for help with, the person involved would have to report to authorities.

Within the Confessional
Canon Law specifically and absolutely forbids the priest from divulging anything sacramentally confessed (Can 983).
That said, and notwithstanding Canon 980, it would be possible for a priest to withhold absolution from a penitent until she has reported any crime to the authorities herself. The priest may legitimately have doubts about the penitent's penitence until she accepts the consequences of her actions.
I have been told that if a priest has plans to travel on a particular plane, and someone sacramentally confesses that that flight is to be hijacked and brought down, the priest must not alter his own behaviour and travel on a different plane. He must act as if he had heard nothing.
There is scope for conflict with civil law. In the United Kingdom, it is not normally an offence not to report criminal activity, but terrorism, money-laundering, treason and the failure to lawfully dispose of a body must be reported. A priest who hears such a confession is bound by civil law to report the crime and by canon law not to do so. Other countries may expand that list of applicable crimes.
Outside the Confessional
The requirement to maintain the secrecy of the sacramental confession does not bind anything confessed outside the sacrament of Reconciliation.
In the United Kingdom, it is not a criminal offence not to report or make an allegation of child abuse. Even if such a report is made, a priest could not give evidence such as "X told me that she had," because that's hearsay. Additional primary evidence would be required.
In England and Wales, the Catholic Safeguarding Advisory Service says

An adult who provides information should be encouraged to share that information with the statutory agencies, where appropriate.
They should be offered support by the Local Safeguarding Representative to do so.
If the adult or child providing information about another child request anonymity when the Safeguarding Officer makes the referral to Children's Social Care Services or the Police, those agencies will respect their wishes as far as possible. However, where investigations proceed to Court this may not be possible to maintain at all times.
An adult in an official or lay position of trust within the Church cannot expect to remain anonymous when a referral is made.

In the case of an offender confessing outside the Confessional, there is a duty to report, and to encourage the offender to tell the authorities herself.