According to Catholicism, does the Eucharist have all the same physical and chemical properties, and physiological effects, as bread and wine? Come, everyone who thirsts, come to the waters; and he who has no
  money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and
  without price. Why do you spend your money for that which is not
  bread, and your labor for that which does not satisfy? Listen
  diligently to me, and eat what is good, and delight yourselves in
  rich food.

  Isaiah 55:1-2 (KJV)

According to Catholicism, do the Eucharist have all the same physical and chemical properties, and physiological effects, as bread and wine? Does the Eucharist nourish the body?

The short answer is “yes.” The appearances of bread and wine left after the Consecration have all of the physical characteristics (“accidents”) of bread and wine, including the ability to be incorporated into the body.

(Obviously, the quantities are insufficient for someone to live off them, but they are metabolized by the body in the normal way. If we are to interpret the passage from Isaiah given by the O.P. as applying to the Eucharist, then we would have to interpret it more metaphorically. Food, drink, and nourishment could easily be metaphors for the grace that the faithful obtain by receiving the Eucharist, which is actually more important—in and of itself—than physical nourishment.)

What changes is what theologians—using Aristotle’s terminology—call the substance (what a thing is simply because it exists). In this case, the substance of the bread (or wine) is converted into the very substance of Jesus Christ.

However, all of the physical properties and characteristics, or accidents, remain the same. There is no physical or chemical test that could distinguish the Corpus or Sanguis from bread or wine.

The Eucharist is one of those few phenomena in which faith alone can tell us the difference (in the words of the Eucharistic hymn attributed to St. Thomas Aquinas, Ad firmandum cor sincerum / Sola fides sufficit, “In order to strengthen a sincere heart [to believe this mystery], faith alone suffices.”)

Note that the substantial presence of the Lord remains only for as long as the appearances of bread and wine remain. Hence, the Real Presence stops once the Eucharist has dissolved in the body.

The Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist (which is essentially the same as that of the Eastern Orthodox and the other apostolic churches) is summed up in numbers 1373-1381 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.


How do Baptists interpret Revelation 20 and 21? I understand that Revelation is one of the more challenging books to ask about, but what I hope to find out is what Baptists believe chapters 21 and 22 foretell for the future.

Chapter 20:1-3 and 20:7-9; do they believe the confining of Satan to
the abyss and then release onto the earth is literal or figurative?
What do they derive from the verses about a “new earth” described in
Revelation 21:1-4?

Just to let you know, I haven’t had as much fun as this since lockdown started.  After hours of research, I’ve discovered lots of really useful information on General Baptists, Particular Baptists and Reformed Baptists.  I’ve delved into the London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689), the Westminster Confession of Faith and Calvin’s ‘Institutes.’  It has been a fascinating but futile journey because it turns out that Baptists throughout the world are split on the subject of eschatology.
From what I’ve read, it seems Charles Spurgeon was a premillennialist, English Reformed Baptists appear to be amillennialist whereas American Reformed Baptists are split 50/50 between historic premillennialist and amillennialist.
The only honest answer I can give is that Baptist eschatology can be summed up by saying Jesus Christ will return personally and visibly in glory to the earth; the dead will be raised; and Christ will judge everyone in righteousness.
As to how Baptists interpret Revelation, the jury is still out.  One thing is clear, though, and that is that Reformed and Particular Baptists follow in the theological footsteps of John Calvin, especially with regard to the doctrine of salvation. Here is one useful quote taken from his ‘Institutes’:

Book 3, Chapter 25, Section 6 – Condition and abode of souls from death till last day: It is foolish and rash to inquire into hidden things, farther than God permits us to know. Scripture, after telling that Christ is present with them, and receives them into paradise (John 12:32), and that they are comforted, while the souls of the reprobate suffer the torments which they have merited, goes no farther. What teacher or doctor will reveal to us what God has concealed? As to the place of abode, the question is not less futile and inept, since we know that the dimension of the soul is not the same as that of the body.  When the abode of blessed spirits is designated as the bosom of Abraham, it is plain that, on quitting this pilgrimage, they are received by the common father of the faithful, who imparts to them the fruit of his faith.
Still, since Scripture uniformly enjoins us to look with expectation to the advent of Christ, and delays the crown of glory till that period, let us be contented with the limits divinely prescribed to us--viz. that the souls of the righteous, after their warfare is ended, obtain blessed rest where in joy they wait for the fruition of promised glory, and that thus the final result is suspended till Christ the Redeemer appear. There can be no doubt that the reprobate have the same doom as that which Jude assigns to the devils, they are "reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day," (Jude ver. 6).
Book 3, Chapter 25, Section 12 – Happiness of Elect – Misery of Reprobate: Moreover, as language cannot describe the severity of the divine vengeance on the reprobate, their pains and torments are figured to us by corporeal things, such as darkness, wailing and gnashing of teeth, inextinguishable fire, the ever-gnawing worm (Mt. 8:12; 22:13; Mark 9:43; Isa. 66:24).
As we thus require to be assisted to conceive the miserable doom of the reprobate, so the consideration on which we ought chiefly to dwell is the fearful consequence of being estranged from all fellowship with God, and not only so, but of feeling that his majesty is adverse to us, while we cannot possibly escape from it. For, first, his indignation is like a raging fire, by whose touch all things are devoured and annihilated. Next, all the creatures are the instruments of his judgment, so that those to whom the Lord will thus publicly manifest his anger will feel that heaven, and earth, and sea, all beings, animate and inanimate, are, as it were, inflamed with dire indignation against them, and armed for their destruction. Wherefore, the Apostle made no trivial declaration, when he said that unbelievers shall be "punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power," (2 Thess. 1:9) Source: https://reformed.org/master/index.html?mainframe=/books/institutes/books/indxbk3.html

During the first five years of my Christian life, I was a member of an English Baptist Church.  I can't recall the senior minister ever delivering a sermon on eschatology. I put that down to the fact that he was more concerned with preaching the gospel and making sure we had a firm grasp on the important doctrines to do with sin, salvation and the person of Christ Jesus.  Heaven and hell were taught as realities as was the second coming.  Dispensationalism and Millennialism were not subjects for Sunday sermons, although the senior minister had plenty books on the subject.  Had I been curious enough to enquire, I dare say he would have been willing to introduce me to those subjects.
Suffice to allow Calvin to have the last word: “It is foolish and rash to inquire into hidden things, farther than God permits us to know.”


What is a good beginner reading-level Bible book for adults? I have a friend who is foreign born and her English is good but she needs to improve her reading and writing skills. It is jeopardizing her job situation because she can't read/write emails very well. I want to suggest some books for her to read that will help her improve her skills. However, she is very religious, and would only be interested in reading Bible-related books.

She reads from the King James Bible every day for ~30 mins, but it is in old english, and I am not sure that she understands what she is reading. But she reads it religiously. Is there a more modern Bible-related book that I can suggest for her? Something that would help her understand modern grammar and sentence structure would be best, especially for improving her written communication in daily life.

Any help would be great!

I love the New International Version for easier reading.. Or even the New KIng James is better than the old using ye olde englishe :) Or the "Good News Bible" may be even better!

I also love, even as an adult, some of the Bibles for Children. And as far as sentence structure, would, I think, be good for beginning to learn good sentence structure. And some I'm sure are put out by the King James publishers(?)


According to Catholic Church tradition, where, when, how and by whom did the devotion of the Stations of the Cross begin? Lent is approaching and during Holy Week, it is my understanding that every year at the Colosseum, the Pope leads the faithful in a devotion called the of the Way of the Cross [cf. this photo gallery].

According to Catholic Church tradition, where, when, how and by whom did the devotion of the Stations of the Cross begin?

Seeking answers from Catholic documents/sources. Please note the question is asking when, according to Church Tradition did the devotion start. Who , according to the Church Tradition did it first, when, and where?

If you are asking specifically about The Stations of The Cross as we know them today in the West, that is to say: the practice of placing symbolic artwork around a worship space depicting the events of Jesus' final hours and the practice of moving about from station to station in prayer, you can probably pin it on The Franciscans (and by extension St. Francis of Assissi) sometime near the end of the 17th century in central Europe.

Taken in this regard The Stations are a symbolic representation of a physical, bodily pilgrimage to the purported locales of said events, which may have begun within a generation or two of Christ's crucifixion.

  Tradition asserts that the Blessed Virgin used to visit daily the
  scenes of Christ's Passion and St. Jerome (c.  347 – 420) speaks of the crowds of
  pilgrims from all countries who used to visit the holy places in his
  day. (The Catholic Encyclopedia - 1907)

Fast forward to The Middle Ages and The Crusades. (The military campaigns enjoined by The Catholic Church to re-establish Christian access to said holy places.)

  In 1342, Pope Clement VI, by the Papal bulls Gratiam agimus and Nuper
  charissimae declared the Franciscans as the official custodians of the
  Holy Places in the name of the Catholic Church. (The Bull of Clement VI - 1342)

Then, in central Europe during the 15th and 16th centuries, Franciscans started to create outdoor sculptures and shrines that would replicate these holy places of Jerusalem. These were usually placed, often in small buildings, along the approach to a church, as in a set of 1490 by Adam Kraft, leading to the Johanneskirche in Nuremberg. (1)

But to get to what - I think - is the crux of your question:

  Realizing that few persons, comparatively, were able to gain these by
  means of a personal pilgrimage to the Holy Land, Innocent XI, in 1686,
  granted to the Franciscans, in answer to their petition, the right to
  erect the Stations in all their churches, and declared that all the
  indulgences that had ever been given for devoutly visiting the actual
  scenes of Christ's Passion, could thenceforth be gained by Franciscans
  and all others affiliated to their order if they made the Way of the
  Cross in their own churches in the accustomed manner.

  Innocent XII
  confirmed the privilege in 1694 and Benedict XIII in 1726 extended it
  to all the faithful. In 1731 Clement XII still further extended it by
  permitting the indulgenced Stations to all churches, provided that
  they were erected by a Franciscan father with the sanction of the
  ordinary.

  At the same time he definitely fixed the number of Stations
  at fourteen.

  (The Catholic Encyclopedia - 1907)

(1) Schiller, Gertrud, Iconography of Christian Art, Vol. II, p. 82, 1972 (English trans from German), Lund Humphries, London, ISBN 0-85331-324-5


Can a Catholic simultaneously profess more than one rite? Background

In catholicism, there are 24 autonomous particular churches sui iuris, one Western and 23 Eastern. All of these churches are in communion with the Pope, and thus are considered, for all intents and purposes, Catholic.

When I was reading Orientalum Ecclesiarum, I was curious if there was no limit (other than 24) on the number of rites a Catholic could profess to be a part of.  The only statement I could find that implies "only one" was found in the 6th paragraph:

  Finally, each and every Catholic, as also the baptized of every non-Catholic church or denomination who enters into the fullness of the Catholic communion, must retain his own rite wherever he is, must cherish it and observe it to the best of his ability...

However, nowhere is this papal decree could I find anything explicitly banning professing more than one rite.  Hence this lead me to the question...

Question

Could a Catholic believer profess as many rites as he or she pleases?

Note: This is different from Can any catholic rite call themself Roman Catholic? because I am not asking about the validity of any one rite being equivalent to Roman Catholic, but rather the ability to profess differeing rites within Catholicism.

Other than biritual priests, who can "celebrate the liturgy and administer the sacraments in more than one rite," a Catholic belongs to one rite.

1983 Code canon 111 allows parents of different rites to choose which rite to baptize their children in:

  §1. Through the reception of baptism, the child of parents who belong to the Latin Church is enrolled in it, or, if one or the other does not belong to it, both parents have chosen by mutual agreement to have the offspring baptized in the Latin Church. If there is no mutual agreement, however, the child is enrolled in the ritual Church to which the father belongs.§2. Anyone to be baptized who has completed the fourteenth year of age can freely choose to be baptized in the Latin Church or in another ritual Church sui iuris; in that case, the person belongs to the Church which he or she has chosen.

Canon 112 governs changing rites:

  §1. After the reception of baptism, the following are enrolled in another ritual Church sui iuris:1/ a person who has obtained permission from the Apostolic See;2/ a spouse who, at the time of or during marriage, has declared that he or she is transferring to the ritual Church sui iuris of the other spouse; when the marriage has ended, however, the person can freely return to the Latin Church;3/ before the completion of the fourteenth year of age, the children of those mentioned in nn. 1 and 2 as well as, in a mixed marriage, the children of the Catholic party who has legitimately transferred to another ritual Church; on completion of their fourteenth year, however, they can return to the Latin Church.§2. The practice, however prolonged, of receiving the sacraments according to the rite of another ritual Church sui iuris does not entail enrollment in that Church.


Why were the golden plates necessary if Joseph Smith received his translation of the Book of Mormon by viewing a stone in his hat? Firsthand accounts say that Joseph Smith used a seer stone to receive the translation for the Book of Mormon (emphasis mine):

Joseph Smith put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.
— David Whitmer, "An Address to All Believers in Christ" (1887), 12; Quinn (1998, p. 172).

The LDS website on the translation of the Book of Mormon corroborates this account of Joseph Smith looking into his hat at the stone, and states that the gold plates containing the original "reformed Egyptian" version of the text were sometimes nearby, but covered.

Joseph’s wife Emma explained that she “frequently wrote day after day” at a small table in their house in Harmony, Pennsylvania. She described Joseph “sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us.” According to Emma, the plates “often lay on the table without any attempt at concealment, wrapped in a small linen table cloth.”

These accounts make it clear that Joseph Smith was not looking at the golden plates when he was translating the Book of Mormon, and they were covered by cloth so that they were not visible to anyone. My understanding is that sometimes the golden plates were not even in the room when he translated them. It seems strange that after all the difficulty he went through to get them, the golden plates were ultimately unused during the actual translation process.
Given that multiple sources say that Joseph Smith derived at least a major portion of his translation of the Book of Morman by looking at the stone in his hat "hour after hour", why were the golden plates necessary in the first place?

Not even the stones were really necessary, as is clearly shown by the many revelations that came without them.

But: The existence of the seer stone shows that Joseph believed that revelation could come through a physical object. So that helped his faith, but also probably made the translation easier for him, as he had more experience with the stone than "direct revelation". I think we see that change later during the course of his life.

Second: The existence of the plates, even though few people saw them, helped that people believed this was an actual record written by ancient prophets. Also, it provided the opportunity to have the witnesses see the plates and testify for their existence, giving more credibility to Joseph.

Joseph wasn't given the ability to read and understand the plates, and then carry out a translation with this knowledge. He was given the translation directly.


Is Partialism a real heresy? This YouTube video identifies Partialism as a heresy. It states that Partialism is the heresy wherein The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each described as 1/3 of God. To me, it's a vaguely familiar false understanding of the Trinity; but I can't find any solid information about it.

Are there any historical documents, early Church writings, or documents from a major denomination (Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, etc.) that assert this idea by this or any other name as a heresy or false understanding of the Trinity?

If the condemnation of this idea can't be pinned directly to a historical document or Church Father, when can we reasonably assert that it was condemned, if ever?

Per Peter Turner, the wikipedia page on Partialism is an occasion of sin. I have not attempted to verify this, but the relevant Wikipedia page is the one on divine simplicity.

Update:

The short answer: No; it seems that partialism is not a "real," historically defined heresy.

Explanation: Before writing this post, I checked the applicable titles from among my usual textual sources -- a variety of historic theological works that are now in the public domain and available online. When that yielded no references to "partialism," I went several pages deep on various Google searches. That search turned up many pages that described "partialism," although few of them listed any references, and those that did and those that did not all seemed to have come from one of two sources: Either a page at Monergism.com on Trinitarian Heresies, or a YouTube video entitled "St. Patrick's Bad Analogies." I then wrote the answer that follows, which offers some historic information on the doctrine of the Trinity, but does not reference "partialism" directly.

Some time later, I decided to continue looking for answers by visiting a seminary here in town that has a pretty heavy duty library. Having searched there extensively, I'm now going to go ahead and say: "Partialism" is not an historically defined Trinitarian heresy.

My search at the seminary library included extensive online databases of academic theological journals; no less than twenty separate dictionaries of Christianity that covered the entirety of church history in (tens of?) thousands of pages; multiple encyclopedias of Christianity; and various other books. There was not a single, solitary occurrence of the word "partialism" to be found anywhere.

The reason I mentioned all this is to illustrate how it is that I reached the bolded conclusion above. While I of course could be wrong, it's also interesting to note that, in the "St. Patrick's Bad Analogies" video, where historic references are offered for various of the Trinitarian Heresies that are described, when "Partialism" is mentioned, a joke is offered in place of any history.

Perhaps "partialism," with its many internet references, belongs on Snopes.com?

Original Post:

The Short Answer: The Council of Nicea is one historic event that, though it did not addresses Partialism by that name, did clarify the orthodox doctrines regarding the ideas expressed in Partialism.

Summary

This answer describes some church history events from the fourth century CE in detail. It specifically looks at the Council of Nicea, the Arian Controversy, and the work of Athanasius, all of which directly addressed the ways in which the Father and Son relate to each other as two Persons of the Trinity.

It does not directly address partialism by that name, however, and is offered as relevant historical background, as the Council of Nicea arguably created the frame within which all following Trinitarian doctrine was developed. (It's also a nice opportunity for me to make a few notes to summarize some of my recent reading).

The Council of Nicea and the Arian Controversy1

The Council of Nicea, or First Ecumenical Council, was held in 325 CE. The Roman Emperor Constantine had called the meeting of bishops from across his newly unified empire to decide the orthodox stance on various doctrinal issues, and especially to resolve the Arian Controversy.

The Arian Controversy had begun a few years earlier, as a dispute between two leaders of the Christian Church in Alexandria: Bishop Alexander of Alexandria, and a popular presbyter named Arius. The main issue was whether or not the Son was co-eternal with the Father, or whether the Son was created by the Father. The latter was Arius' teaching. While it may sound like a theological subtlety, it actually had profound soteriological implications at a point in history when many of the doctrines that we take for granted today had not yet been decided.

When the time came for the presentation of the Arian perspectives at the Council, Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia -- not to be confused with Eusebius of Caesaria, the widely regarded "Father of Church History" -- presented the ideas taught by Arius', with whom he agreed, in a speech, since only bishops could address the Council. The response of the majority of the bishops in attendance was condemnatory, and some went so far as to tear Eusebius' notes from his hands and trample them underfoot, shouting "blasphemer!" and "heretic!"

The Nicene Creed was formulated by the Council as a response to Arianism. Emperor Constantine himself -- perhaps prompted by an advisor -- suggested the use of the Greek word homoousios, "of the same substance," to describe the nature of the Father and Son, and this word was included in the Creed. The official response to the Arian Controversy, now the Heresy of Arianism, seemed settled.

The Resurgence of Arianism and the Response Led by Athanasius of Alexandria2

Not everyone accepted the findings of the Council of Nicea, however, and some of those who continued to embrance Arianism had significant political influence. The state had a important role in determining what was and what was not acceptable church teaching, and the matter was further complicated when Constantine died and was succeeded by his three sons, each of whom ruled over a different portion of the Roman Empire. Constantius, the son who ruled over the eastern portion of the empire, including Alexandria in Egypt, was pro-Arian, and years later would come to be the sole emperor in 353 CE.

Enter Athanasius of Alexandria, who had attended the Council of Nicea as a young man, where he was part of Alexander's group. Athanasius was not known as a particularly intellectual man, though he did write extensively, and neither were his political connections great, but he was widely revered for his monastic discipline and holiness of life. In 328 CE he became bishop of Alexandria, though he did not seek the office and even tried to avoid being appointed. He would go on to lead the response against the Arian resurgence.

As a result of his efforts, Athanasius endured suffering both from the state and from other leaders of the church. He was banished from and returned to Alexandria on more than one occassion, and his opponents spread rumors to the effect that he practiced occult magic, that he was a tyrant over the Alexandrian church, and even that he was a murderer -- all of which rumors he successfully defeated in time. Athanasius remained "a man of the people," and was given a hero's welcome when he returned from the banishment imposed by state officials, fearful as they were of his ability to influence the public.

Conclusion

After several years of many individuals working to teach the Nicene faith, Arianism was on the decline, with the majority of the church rejecting the idea that the Son was created by the Father. Many of those who plainly rejected Arianism were reluctant to accept the language of the Nicene Creed however, due to a concern that the word homoousios could be interpreted as meaning that there was no distinction between the Son and the Father (which was related to Patripassionism, another doctrinal controversy). The word homoiousios, "of a similar substance," was suggested as a more accurate description of the relation of the Father and the Son.

Initially, Athanasius said that those who favored the term homoiousios were just as heretical as the Arians. He stated his doctrine in no uncertain terms in his Four Discourses Against the Arians:3

  As we said above, so now we repeat, that the divine generation must not be compared to the nature of men, nor the Son considered to be part of God, nor the generation to imply any passion whatever; God is not as man; for men beget passibly, having a transitive nature, which waits for periods by reason of its weakness. But with God this cannot be; for He is not composed of parts, but being impassible and simple, He is impassibly and indivisibly Father of the Son.

Continued study and debate over the next few years led him to a more comprehensive view, however. His final determination on the matter, as summarized by church historian Justo Gonzalez, was as follows:4

  Finally, in a synod gathered in Alexandria in 362 CE, Athanasius and his followers declared that it was acceptable to refer to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as "of one substance" as long as this was not understood as obliterating the distinction among the three, and that it was also legitimate to speak of "three substances" as long as this was not understood as if there were three gods.

A few years after Athanasius' death, the Second Ecumenical Council was held in Constantinople in 381 CE, and the doctrine of the Council of Nicea was ratified. In addition to establishing the equality of the Holy Spirit within the Trinity, the Council further established the Nicene understanding as orthodox teaching across the Empire, and again condemned the Arian teaching as heretical.

The emphasis during this period of history on the particular words used to describe the relative equality of the "substance" of which the Father and Son are composed seems to speak directly to the concept of Partialism.

Sources:

The Story of Christianity, Revised Edition, by Justo Gonzalez. Chapter 17, "The Arian Controversy and the Council of Nicea."
Gonzalez. Chapter 19, "Athanasius of Alexandria."
Four Discourses Against the Arians. Discourse One, paragraph 28. New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia.
Gonzalez. Chapter 17.


Why does God use an army of Angels to fight against evil when he could do it himself? Many places in the Bible talk about a heavenly host or army of angels. Why does God use an army to fight against devil and evil spirits, when he is the powerful creator? Matthew 19:26 says, all things are possible with God. It really makes me to think "are Devils equal to God in power"?.

Here are a few examples that speak about the army of God (Angels):

Psalm 35:5-6, Matthew 13:41, II Kings 6:14-17, Revelation 12:7-8

God graciously allows the Angels to fight the battles with the Devil and his demons. God is omniscient and already knows who will be successful in every battle between The Arch Angel Michael and Satan and his rebellious Angels.

If God himself were to oppose Satan it would not be a battle since God is omnipotent. There are other factors which need be considered also, God does not unleash all of his Angels against them either. We know this because only one third of the Angels rebelled with Satan.

  Revelation 12:4 KJV  And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

With a two to one advantage it would have been a short war.

So it seems that God is even gracious to his enemies, which may give some insight to:

  Matthew 5:43 and 44 KJV have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

and also:

  Luke 10:19  Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.

Unless I am mistaken when Jesus refers to the enemy he is referring to the Devil.


Do Messianic Jews practice the jubliee? There is a a range of opinion of different denominations on how far Mosaic law should be practiced. Messianic Judaism stands very much at the "one law" end of the scale. However, I am wondering how far this is practicable. Some Mosaic law is difficult to practice within a larger context. For example, Messianic Jews do not generally (as far as I know never) stone people. However, I was wondering if they practice the jubilee year? Although this would be difficult for them concerning outside trading it could be practicable within the group.

The messianic community is very diverse and complex, like the various christian denominations.
There is no official body or teaching on how far to apply the mosaic law.
Most of the messianic believers are not that strict orthodox as one might expect (at least not in Israel), to most of them the year of jubilee and the shmitah (every 7th year) does not really apply. However there are some more religious messianics who keep it and for example to not buy fruits and vegetables in the shmitah year from Israel.
This is due to the fact that the laws for the jubilee and the shmitah mostly apply to agricultue, selling and redeeming property (mostly land) and freeing slaves.
Most of these things, except the first one do not apply to the modern society anymore.
However what applies they are trying to keep, due to the understanding that the laws are also give with a reason.


How can one tell if God is in favor of a modern value or not? The Bible seems to condone slavery and accept wives as their husband's property. But these are generally acknowledged to be immoral in modern civilization.

Yet, there are other modern societal perspectives which differ from their Biblical perspectives that many (if not most) Christians deem to still be ungraceful in God's eyes, like homosexuality.

I'm familiar with arguments that the Bible was written for its own time and pertained only to the era. But, if some values can be progressive and Christian despite what is in the Bible while others cannot, how can one know which ones God is okay with?

Also, is it possible he just doesn't care about stuff like slavery?

Your question basically boils down to two things: hermeneutics and doctrine.

Hermeneuetics is the study of texts, and Biblical Hermeneutics is the application of textual study to the scripture and the process of determining what it means. This field is relevant to your question because your question itself contains clear trances of not being backed by any kind of hermeneutics at all. For example you mention that a "woman as property" view is condoned by Scripture. This is commonly made assertion made by commentators with an anti-Christian bias, but it is not based on a good reading of the text. In order to come away with an idea like that one must ignore the difference in literary genres between passages. The difference between narrative and prescriptive passages is very important and how that is determined is part of what the field of hermeneutics addresses.

Doctrines are beliefs about any given topic. Good doctrine is the result of careful application of hereneutics and a good overall understanding of Scripture and general revelation. Bad doctrine looks a lot like humanism and is the result of man using his own internal moral compass to delineate what he wants to believe. One must always choose between doctrines.

There are of course conflicting doctrines out there. Some will say that practicing homosexuality is fine for a Christian, others will say it's a result of man's fallen sinful nature and an abomination in God's eyes. In order to determine which bit of doctrine you are going to subscribe to you need to do some research. If, as in the title of your question, you plan on subscribing to whatever you can determine to be God's judgement on the matter then your first order of business is to figure out what he said on the matter in the past and what it means to you today.

This means approaching Scripture using the lens of hermeneutics, examining the Canon to determine which books and teachings you are going to consider and authoritative witness on which to base your doctrinal conclusions, what methods of interpreting the text you will use and then applying that to the whole of Scripture to deduce a cohesive theology (or understanding of God's nature and the nature of his dealings with men). Once you have that you can use it to help guide your discernment on individual decisions. Is X a sin? What do the scriptures I hold true say about the matter, how do I read and apply those scriptures and what conclusions must I draw?

All Christian traditions have some corpus of accepted doctrines. Part of your process in choosing what tradition to align yourself with should be examining their doctrines and the basis for those doctrines to see if their reasoning and sources are sound and comparing them to any other conclusions based on the same sources. When conflicts arise between conflicting doctrines, you should have some clear idea WHY you reject one interpretation over another that has taken into consideration how the various conclusions got drawn.

Lastly, any true search for God's opinion -- his will in any given matter -- is going to include communicating with him on the matter. Although they vary in how they see this implemented practically, all Christians pretty much agree that God has made some provision for guiding people into a proper understanding of his word through his Holy Spirit left as a counselor to men after Jesus left earth. Not asking Him to guide you in your discernment process would be like trying to map out the objects in a dark room without turning on the light.


Catholics: how can the book of Wisdom be inspired if the author pretended to be Solomon? This is a sincere question, not one of those sneering ones that try to make the one being questioned look bad.

The church fathers unanimously considered the Book of Wisdom to be inspired and Dei Verbum (official teaching of the church) states that all inspired scripture is infallible. But when you read it, the author clearly pretends to be King Solomon even though the book was written many hundreds of years after Solomon was dead.

  You told me to build a temple on your sacred mountain, an altar in Jerusalem, the city you chose as your home. It is a copy of that temple in heaven, which you prepared at the beginning. (Wisdom 9:8)

The question has several underlying premises.

The Catholic Church considers the Book of Wisdom to be canonical, i.e. it belongs to the Scripture.

For Catholicism, infallibility of Scripture means "every part of Scripture is literally true".

In Wisdom 9:8 (or else) the author claims to be Solomon.

Premise 1 is of course true. Yet, notice that premises 2. and 3. imply that Catholicism must consider Solomon to be the author of the book. However, this clearly contradicts the "scholarly consensus" that Solomon did not authored the book (consensus which is actually the case, see below). Hence, one of the three above premises must be wrong. The OP seems to hold the idea (by the tone of the answer) that premise 1 the problem, i.e. that the Book of Wisdom should not be considered canonical, as many protestant denominations do.
The problem however is with premise 2. The Catholic Church does not ascribe to fundamentalism. The Catholic Church has never declared the Bible to be inerrant (a la Protestantism). In fact, this position is openly criticised. For instance, this 1993 document by the Pontifical Biblical Commission states:

The basic problem with fundamentalist interpretation of this kind is that, refusing to take into account the historical character of biblical revelation, it makes itself incapable of accepting the full truth of the incarnation itself. As regards relationships with God, fundamentalism seeks to escape any closeness of the divine and the human. It refuses to admit that the inspired word of God has been expressed in human language and that this word has been expressed, under divine inspiration, by human authors possessed of limited capacities and resources. For this reason, it tends to treat the biblical text as if it had been dictated word for word by the Spirit. It fails to recognize that the word of God has been formulated in language and expression conditioned by various periods. It pays no attention to the literary forms and to the human ways of thinking to be found in the biblical texts, many of which are the result of a process extending over long periods of time and bearing the mark of very diverse historical situations.
Fundamentalism also places undue stress upon the inerrancy of certain details in the biblical texts, especially in what concerns historical events or supposedly scientific truth. It often historicizes material which from the start never claimed to be historical. It considers historical everything that is reported or recounted with verbs in the past tense, failing to take the necessary account of the possibility of symbolic or figurative meaning.

In effect, the Catholic Church does not adhere and has never adhere to such "literalness" interpretation. In fact, another very important implied assumption of the question is that the Catholic Church does assert Solomon to be the author of the Book of Wisdom. This is also false.
Regarding the "scholarly consensus", in effect, the Book of Wisdom is considered to be written between in late 1st century B.C., and definitely not in the time of Solomon. This is for instance, expounded in this 2011's book (see section 2.3). The Catholic Church does not oppose this position. E.g. already in 1912 the Catholic Encyclopedia stated:

Of course the fact that the entire Book of Wisdom was composed in Greek rules out its Solomonic authorship. It is indeed true that ecclesiastical writers of the first centuries commonly assumed this authorship on the basis of the title of the book, apparently confirmed by those passages (ix, 7, 8, 12; cf. vii, 1, 5; viii, 13, 14, etc.) where the one speaking is clearly King Solomon. But this view of the matter never was unanimous in the Early Christian Church, and in the course of time a middle position between its total affirmation and its total rejection was suggested. The Book of Wisdom, it was said, is Solomon's inasmuch as it is based on Solomonic works which are now lost, but which were known to and utilized by a hellenistic Jew centuries after Solomon's death. This middle view is but a weak attempt at saving something of the full Solomonic authorship affirmed in earlier ages. "It is a supposition which has no positive arguments in its favour, and which, in itself, is improbable, since it assumes the existence of Solomonic writings of which there is no trace, and which would have been known only to the writer of the Book of Wisdom" (Cornely-Hagen, "Introd. in Libros Sacros, Compendium," Paris, 1909, p. 361). At the present day, it is freely admitted that Solomon is not the writer of the Book of Wisdom, "which has been ascribed to him because its author, through a literary fiction, speaks as if he were the Son of David" (Vigouroux, "Manuel Biblique", II, n. 868. See also the notice prefixed to the Book of Wisdom in the current editions of the Douai Version). [...] All these variations as to authorship prove that the author's name is really unknown (cf. the notice prefixed to Wisdom in the Douay Version).

The "freely admitted" can be understood, in the dogmatic sense, as being permitted within the boundaries of the Magisterium (i.e. not being a heresy).


Is every Doctor of the Church a Saint? What are the requirements to be made a Doctor of the Church? This is a question directed at Roman Catholics, or anyone familiar with the history of the Roman Catholic church.

Every Doctor of the Church is a saint.  I was curious if this is perhaps a requirement to be recognized as a Doctor, or if it is merely a "coincidence" (i.e. unintentional by the church) that all Doctors also happen be saints?

I've also noticed that some Doctors of the Church are also Early Church Fathers.  The opposite is not true though - not all Fathers of the church are necessarily Doctors (see Origen, for example).

What exactly are the requirements to be appointed a Doctor of the Church?

Why the titled is conferred

  Certain ecclesiastical writers have received this title on account of
  the great advantage the whole Church has derived from their doctrine.

Who confers it

  To these great names others have subsequently been added. The
  requisite conditions are enumerated as three: eminens doctrina,
  insignis vitae sanctitas, Ecclesiae declaratio (i.e. eminent learning,
  a high degree of sanctity, and proclamation by the Church). Benedict
  XIV explains the third as a declaration by the supreme pontiff or by a
  general council. But though general councils have acclaimed the
  writings of certain Doctors, no council has actually conferred the
  title of Doctor of the Church. In practice the procedure consists in
  extending to the universal church the use of the Office and Mass of a
  saint in which the title of doctor is applied to him. The decree is
  issued by the Congregation of Sacred Rites and approved by the pope,
  after a careful examination, if necessary, of the saint's writings. It
  is not in any way an ex cathedra decision, nor does it even amount to
  a declaration that no error is to be found in the teaching of the
  Doctor. It is, indeed, well known that the very greatest of them are
  not wholly immune from error. No martyr has ever been included in the
  list, since the Office and the Mass are for Confessors. Hence, as
  Benedict XIV points out, St. Ignatius, St. Irenæus, and St. Cyprian
  are not called Doctors of the Church. - Source: Doctors of the Church | New Advent


Are there equal numbers of male and female Christians? I've heard it suggested the male/female ratio of Christians is such that there are significantly more female Christians than male Christians.

Is this true? I don't seem to be able to find an answer online, but presumably statistics must exist, e.g. census or church registers (although of course there are potentially biases within such records).

Here is some ad-hoc information about the church in the US:
http://churchformen.com/men-and-church/where-are-the-men/
According to these numbers, and if we assume Christian activity is a reasonable estimate of the probability of being a Christian, then there are more Christian women than men and the difference is probably quite significant.
The author's summary/opinion:

You’re not just imagining it. Christianity is short on men.

His statistics are based primarily on church attendance:

The typical U.S. Congregation draws an adult crowd that’s 61% female, 39% male. >This gender gap shows up in all age categories.
On any given Sunday there are 13 million more adult women than men in America’s >churches.
This Sunday almost 25 percent of married, churchgoing women will worship without >their husbands.
Midweek activities often draw 70 to 80 percent female participants.

Some countries may have an even greater imbalance:

Churches overseas report gender gaps of up to 9 women for every adult man in attendance.

Belief versus commitment:

More than 90 percent of American men believe in God, and five out of six call themselves Christians. But only one out of six attend church on a given Sunday. The average man accepts the reality of Jesus Christ, but fails to see any value in going to church.

The significance of that depends on your definition of "Christian". This strongly suggests that there are a lot more active female Christians than active male Christians.


What happened to Joseph, Jesus' father? What happened to Joseph, the father of Jesus, given that the last time he was mentioned in the story of Jesus was "Jesus' finding in the temple" (Luke 2:41-52) after which he is never mentioned again right up to the death of Jesus Christ?

So I want to ask, was he dead before then, or did the Bible just exclude him from the whole story, because I've not found any verse in the Bible that talks about his death or anything after Jesus' finding in the temple?

Scholars tend to agree that Joseph had died prior to Christ's ministry. Catholic tradition represents Mary as a widow during the adult ministry of Christ. Joseph is not mentioned as being present at the Wedding at Cana at the beginning of Jesus' mission, nor at Golgotha. If he had been present at the Crucifixion, he would under Jewish custom have been expected to take charge of Jesus' body, but this role is instead performed by Joseph of Arimathea (see Luke 23:50-53). Nor would Jesus have entrusted his mother to John's care had her husband been alive (see John 19:27).

One explanation given for his death is given in the apocryphal Gospel of James (written ~145AD), supposed to be authored by, or a protoevangelium of James—Jesus brother—which claims that James was actually Joseph's son from a previous marriage. The canon gospels never mention Joseph's age, but this account of James presents Joseph as an old man who was called of God to look after the virgin Mary. If this account is accurate, then the explanation for Joseph's absence later in in Christ's life would be attributed to him passing from old age.

The life of Joseph actually has its own field of study called Josephology. Records of devotions to Saint Joseph go back to the year 800AD and Doctors of the Catholic Church since Saint Thomas Aquinas have written on the subject. With the growth of Mariology, the theological study of Saint Joseph also grew and several centers of study were formed in the 1950s specifically for study of Joseph—Husband of Mary. The modern study of the theology of Saint Joseph is one of the most recent theological disciplines.


Is/will there be time in heaven? An answer suggests that "time is meaningless in heaven."  Do we know this to be true?

It seems like an easy conclusion to draw, based on the following:

God created the entire universe, including all dimensions and time. Therefore, God exists outside of time.
Heaven is the place of "eternal" life.
In Heaven we will be "with" God (so possibly/presumably outside of time as well?)

But does all of this add up to time being meaningless or nonexistent in heaven?  Or does the Bible give us any other clues as to the "timeliness" of Heaven?

If there are significantly diverging views on this based on theological tradition let me know in comments, and I can try to make the question more specific, or ask separate questions for those traditions in which I am most interested.

It seems that the idea that created beings become timeless in heaven is not one that is widely held.  God, as the Creator of time, space, and matter, is the only Being that exists outside of time, space, and matter.

There is a significant distinction between that which is mortal, that which is immortal, and that which is eternal (outside of time).  That which is mortal has both a beginning and an end.  This includes the earth, our physical bodies and taxes (thank goodness).  That which is immortal has a beginning but no end.  This includes our souls and spirits as well as angels.  God alone is eternal.  Only God has no beginning and no ending.

The eternal life that we have does not mean that all of a sudden our lives go from having a beginning to not having a beginning.  We have eternal life in the sense that it will have no end--not in the sense that it has no beginning.  God is eternal in an entirely different sense.  Perhaps our language is not specific enough in this.

The key point is those beings who have a beginning cannot go through any process where their beginning is eliminated and makes them timeless.

We have been created inside of time, space, and matter, and we will always exist within that.  Only God exists outside of it.


Is it appropriate to say that some denominations are more "extreme" than others? I've been thinking about the actions of people under the guise of religions. It is clear to me that there are extremists in any religion, under any denomination, just as there are more liberal people. My question is whether it is appropriate to categorize certain religious denominations as "extreme" intrinsically, as opposed to merely the followers being extreme.

Are only people "extreme"? Or are there aspects of certain denominations that foster extremism in their followers by the nature of the views they preach?

If religious denominations can be weighed by differing amounts of extremism, are there any resources which list each denomination in order of "magnitudes of extremism"? Stated differently, if you agree that there are differences in "extremeness" among religious denominations, you must also (logically) agree that some are more extreme than others, and thus ultimately believe in one that is not extreme; i.e. the "true" base religious standpoint (whether it exists as a denomination today is irrelevant, you have to believe such a standpoint exists if you hold such a position).

Has there been any writing by Christian believers on this subject?

I'm going to take a risk with an initial assumption:  Since it's hard to find non-hostile documentation referring to specific denominations as "extreme" or "extremists, I'm going to offer the next best thing:  Denominations that are widely accepted as Fundamentalists.

The assumption is that by "extreme" you mean "fiercely attached to a core set of beliefs, and less likely to compromise on those positions." This somewhat fits, because of your comparison with "more liberal" people, and Fundamentalism emerged as a counter-force to liberal movements within the Church.

I do realize that there are other ways the term "Extreme" could be interpreted.  It could mean "dangerous" as in those that would kill to defend their beliefs, or the ones that would hole up on a compound somewhere, arming themselves against the invasion of Satan's armies.  My answer doesn't address that type of "extreme".  I'm shooting for what I THINK you're looking for.  Forgive me if I'm wrong.

Fundamentalist Christians are defined as such:

  Fundamentalist Christianity, also known as Christian Fundamentalism or
  Fundamentalist Evangelicalism, is a movement that arose mainly within
  British and American Protestantism in the late 19th and early 20th
  centuries among conservative evangelical Christians, who, in a
  reaction to modernism, actively affirmed a fundamental set of
  Christian beliefs: the inerrancy of the Bible, Sola Scriptura, the
  virgin birth of Christ, the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the
  bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the imminent personal return of
  Jesus Christ.

Various sources can be found that compare Fundamentalists with Mainline Christianity, and Pentecostals.  Of course, all of these are relative terms, but I think the closes you can get to the list you're asking for - a list of denominations that are more extreme would be to look at a list of denominations that are accepted as Fundamentalist.

There are such lists on the Internet, but (oddly enough) the best I found was at Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fundamentalist_denominations

My denomination is listed there, and I'd agree - I fit that definition of Fundamentalist, as to my fellow Church members.  However, nobody in my church (by that, I mean my local West Salem Baptist Church, not Baptists as a whole) would dream of using our devotion to the "old fashioned" positions as an excuse for hostility toward others, as hinted at in the question you linked to.  We take the commandment to love our enemies as seriously as we do the Trinity, or any of the other beliefs that define Fundamentalists.

Other than that, the Handbook of Denominations in the United States gives information similar to what you're looking for - the core beliefs and tenets of each denomination, but not with a chart or ranking in order of Fundamentalism.  You can look at each denomination on your own and use your own definition of Extremism to determine which you think are extreme.


Do the Rogue Pits of cemeteries still exist? In the not-so-good old days, there used to be an annexe to the Christian cemetery, called Rogue Pit in some places, where members who had commited suicide or had lived sinful public life would be burried. These days, such annexe is hard to come by. I wish to know whether the Catholic Church has officially stopped segregating a part of the cemetery to be used as Rogue Pit, or has the practice tapered off without invervention of of the Church authorities .

Do the Rogue Pits of cemeteries still exist?

The rogue pits that once existed were outside consecrated land and not part of a Catholic cemetery.

  "Denying sacramental rites to detractors has been an age-old practice in the church to settle scores," explained C.I. Issac, a historian and member of the Indian Council of Historical Research.

  "Earlier there used to be what was called rogue pits, dug on land immediately outside the main cemetery, to bury those branded as heretics and those who had committed suicide.... Those buried in rogue pits were denied the sacramental rites a Christian is entitled to upon death. It was the greatest insult a Christian could be subjected to."

  Among those who ended up in such pits was Malayalam litterateur M.P. Paul in 1952. Paul, a torchbearer of the progressive literature movement, had challenged the orthodoxy of the church.

  With time, the rogue pit became a thing of the past but what followed was a more "plebeian" form of boycott - as in the case of Mary John. - CHURCH RULES AND BURIAL CHOICE

Rouge Pits are not the same thing as receiving vaults which are still somewhat common in cemeteries that have harsh cold winters. Less common in modern cemetaries, they can still be found here and there.

  A receiving vault or receiving tomb, sometimes also known as a public vault, is a structure designed to temporarily store dead bodies in winter months when the ground is too frozen to dig a permanent grave in a cemetery. Technological advancements in excavation, embalming, and refrigeration have rendered the receiving vault obsolete. - Receiving vault

Front of a receiving vault in Marion, Ohio, United States

This whole question of rouge pits reminds me of the story of Pope St. Gregory the Great and how he refused to bury a monk because he broke the rule in regards to poverty.

  St. Gregory had distinguished himself for his affectionate goodness toward the monks of his monastery, but he also followed the demands of the Rule with a scrupulous severity. In the books of his Dialogues, St. Gregory relates the story of the death of one of his monks, Justus. Three gold coins were found in the monk’s cell, and since this was against their vow of poverty, St. Gregory ordered his body to be tossed on the dunghill instead of buried properly. The coins were thrown on the body in the presence of all the religious, who took turns repeating aloud: “May your money perish with you” (Acts 8:20). Afterward, mercy won over the heart of Abbot Gregory and he ordered, “See to it that for thirty days the Holy Sacrifice [of the Mass] be offered for Justus and that not one day be missed in which the Holy Victim be immolated for his intention” asking God for the liberation of his poor soul from Purgatory. On the thirtieth day, St. Gregory learned of the liberation of Justus’ soul and the efficacy of those thirty Masses through a private revelation.

  St. Gregory, inflamed with a very ardent charity for the souls in Purgatory, lamented that after his death he would not be able to do anything else for them. Our Lord responded, “My Friend, I want to grant in your favor a privilege that will be unique. All souls in Purgatory, for whom thirty Masses are offered in your honor and without interruption, will immediately be saved however great may be their debt toward Me.”

  The practice of having Gregorian Masses offered for the deceased has remained a custom of the faithful for centuries. The shortage of Priests, the majority of whom are occupied in parish ministries, often makes the celebration of the Gregorian Masses impossible.  - Gregorian Masses

Rogue pits is a fancy name for designating the place of burial for those who could not be buried in consecrated ground.

  The Execution and Burial of Criminals in Early Medieval England, c. 850-1150

  ABSTRACT

  In later Anglo-Saxon England, executed offenders and, probably also, other social deviants were separated from the rest of the community in death. They were buried in cemeteries far from settlements but in raised landscapes which would have been visible from frequented areas – so-called ‘execution cemeteries’. However, from the second half of the eleventh century, these deviant cemeteries appear to have fallen out of use.

  Deviant Burial

  Deviant burials are those burials with abnormal traits outside of the normative range of funerary rituals. In early medieval England these normative traits are those discussed previously: burial in consecrated land, or at least within churchyards, orientated west-east and laid supine with the limbs extended. Some of the early thoughts on deviant burials were quite imaginative, suggesting irregularities were due to the undertaker being lazy or even drunk (Aspöck 2008, 23-24 citing Leeds and Harden 1936, 39 and Rolleston 1869, 477 respectively). Most recent scholarship has suggested a more deliberate lack of respect or even purposeful unusual positioning (see for instance Cherryson 2008; Reynolds 2009). (Page54)

  The execution cemetery

  Andrew Reynolds’ recent work has reviewed deviant burial as a sign of judicial punishment in Anglo-Saxon England. Reynolds (2009) has identified and catalogued the phenomenon of the Anglo-Saxon execution cemetery, or cwealmstow, literally meaning death place or killing place. The basic concept of the execution cemetery is not an entirely novel one; it had previously been introduced on occasion as an explanation for sites with unusual forms of burial. Many of the burial types discussed by Reynolds are those same ‘deviant’ types detailed by Helen Geake: decapitation, prone burial, bound limbs and mutilation. Reynolds’ most significant contributions, in building on this earlier work, have been to compile a gazetteer of a number of exemplar sites and to create a site typology for execution cemeteries. (Page 59)

Rouge pits and execution cemeteries are simply terms that a cemetery that had not been consecrated for Christian burial. The dunghill of St. Gregory is an example of this also. Sinners were at one time not permitted to be buried in consecrated ground. There is no need for such cemeteries now, as civil cemeteries are not consecrated by the Church. Individual plots are blessed in such cemeteries in modern times.


Basis for belief that a person can be "possessed by" a demon? I'm asking a rather technical question here. I'm wondering where the idea comes from that a person could be "possessed by" a demon; as in, the demon "possesses" / "owns" the person -- as opposed to the person simply "having" / "possessing" a demon which does things through and for the person.

I understand that there are examples in Scripture where demons give people supernatural abilities like special knowledge or unnatural strength. I also understand that there are examples in Scripture of demons doing things to people like speaking through them or throwing them around. However, my car does things to me that I don't want it to sometimes, but it doesn't "possess" me / "own" me. I own my car. It just doesn't always do what I want it to -- it could even cause me harm (if the brakes went out or something) -- but that has more to do with it not doing what I want it to than it "owning" me. Hopefully this distinction is making sense.

The reason I ask is that I looked up the Greek behind a couple of the instances of "demon possession" in Scripture (Luke 4:33; 8:27) and in both places it is translated to say that the person was possessed by a demon, but in both cases the Greek suggests that the person possessed the demon.

Is there anything explicit in Scripture which describes a person being "possessed by" a demon?  If not, what is the origin of this belief?

I think part of the issue may be the differing meanings of the word "possess".  We typically use the word today to mean "to own" or "to have"; but this is not the original meaning. Etymonline.com records the original meaning of the word (when it entered English at the end of the 1300s) as being "'to hold, occupy, reside in' (without regard to ownership)". The word is often used in a military sense; one can "possess" the territory of an enemy simply by occupying it and militarily controlling it.

In this sense, one could speak of a person as possessing a demon (one might "have a demon" in the same sense as one "has a cold"); but also one could speak of the demon as possessing (invading, residing in, and taking control of) a person.


Is God's wrath an anthropomorphism? In Eastern theology, the idea of a dispassionate God is common. It is often said that wrath is an energy of God but is not part of his essence. I have even heard Western theologians say that wrath is not an eternal attribute of God (it did not exist in the absence of sin, it only exists in response to unholiness). Does he really get mad or is this just for our benefit, since "God is love?" Or is this an influx from Plato into Christian thought? I am interested in a Western explanation (which often speaks of eternal vs. temporal "attributes" of God rather than the Eastern model of essence vs. energies).

There is some confusion about the word ‘anthropomorphism’ as it is found in the Bible. The basic idea is that anything that is ‘unworthy’ of being attributed to God, which is a human characteristic applied to God in order for us to understand something higher and nobler, is anthropomorphic.  For example when the Bible says Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord, the ‘eyes’ are not real physical eyes, but this is an anthropomorphism to say that in God’s perspective Noah was graciously approved.

The Greeks were famous for a different kind of anthropomorphism not found in the Bible. They created gods that seemed like grumpy and resentful children who happened to have a lot of power. This is not the kind of anthropomorphism found in the Bible. The Bible starts 'in the beginning there was God' not man who applied their ideas about themselves to God. God is higher than our nature in every sense and beyond our comprehension in every way. Unlike the Greek god’s created by men, and therefore unholy human traits were projected up to them, God made man and some of our traits are in his image.  So we see human traits that are ‘worthy’ of God are not anthropomorphisms but attestations that we are created in his image.

With regard to emotions, such as love and righteous anger, these emotions are not anthropomorphisms.  Holy anger is a subset of love, for love hates evil and opposes it. An infinite God who loves without measure must necessarily infinitely oppose sin, or he does not love.  Therefore the human affections that we call emotions, at least those that are encouraged in scripture and evident in the life of Christ, are not anthropomorphisms.

Whether God is ‘actually angry’ may mean different things to different people. What is ‘actually’? Is it ‘human’ or ‘real’? We can’t pretend to understand how God feels; we can only know that he wants us to understand him as feeling. The best way to see how God ’feels’ and how God wants our emotions to be like, is to read the gospels and see how God in man felt, and how the Christ's emotions were like. Jesus got angry but was most characteristic as loving - both emotions were real and indicative of how the Father and Spirit 'feel'.


Did Pelagius or Pelagians in General Deny Orthodox Christology In St. John Cassian's work "On the Incarnation: Against Nestorius" he claims that Pelagius believed

  that Jesus Christ had lived as a mere man without any stain of sin, they actually went so far as to declare that men could also be without sin if they liked. ... They added as well that our Lord and Saviour became the Christ after His Baptism, and God after His Resurrection."

On the Incarnation of the Lord Book I Chapter III. Page 552 or 553 of the second series of Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers.

The author of this answer (https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/52958/27623) takes issue with that claim. Is this actually what Pelagius himself, or Pelagians in general believed?

It seems logical that the patristic teaching of the incarnation implicitly teaches an indwelling of grace in mankind brought about by the union of God and Man within the person of Jesus Christ and therefore this is something that the Pelagians want to deny, so they explain that Jesus Christ was simply a man that through his own will and efforts obtained the indwelling of God (sort of like a Christian version of Nietzsche's super-man) and is gracious to us by giving an example.

After a careful re-reading and actually looking at the footnotes of the work I found the answer myself. St John combated a developed form of Pelagianism put forth by Leporius in his own area:

  Leporius was apparently a native of Treves who propagated Pelagian views in Gaul, ascribing his virtues to his own free will and his own strength; and going to far greater lengths than his master in that he connected this doctrine of human sufficiency with heretical views on the Incarnation; thus combining Pelagianism with what was practically Nestorianism, teaching that Jesus was a mere man who had used His free will so well as to have lived without sin, and had only been made Christ in virtue of His Baptism.

This footnote is on pg 552 of the second series of the Nicene-Post Nicene Fathers (same reference as the question).

So Pelagius himself did not ascribe to these views, but the brand of Pelagianism that St. John dealt with seems to have taught this. St. John goes on in the same chapter to mention how Nestorius's own writings betray a sympathy for the views of Pelagius.

It seems to be for this reason that St. John views the Pelagian and Nestorian heresies as linked, where one will naturally lead into the other after a period of time, because if you isolate the human from the divine you inevitably start postulating that man can operate by his own power alone to attain godliness.

It is worthwhile to note that Leporius's letter of repentance and rejection of Pelagianism is included in part on the next page in which Leporius makes no mention of free-will or God's sovereignty, but only talks about the Incarnation:

  Therefore the God-man, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is truly born for us of the Holy Ghost and the ever-virgin Mary. And so in the two natures the Word and Flesh become one, so that while each substance continues naturally perfect in itself, what is Divine imparteth without suffering any loss, to the humanity, and what is human participates in the Divine"

I think that perhaps this view was what St. John viewed as foundational to our understanding of salvation from which implicit rebukes of Pelagianism, Nestorianism, and I would think also Augustine's more extreme views can be drawn.


Judah, Joseph, and Jacob's birthright Jacob had twelve sons, the firstborn of whom was Reuben.  Yet, the birthright that should have passed on to Reuben did not due to Reuben's sin against his father (1 Chronicles 5:1-2).

Naturally, one would assume that the next in line would be Simeon, the second-oldest.  It did not pass to Simeon either.  In fact, Jacob passes over all of his sons until he gets to Joseph.

Now, he essentially passes on the birthright and blessing to Ephraim, the younger of Joseph's sons.

I have a few questions regarding this.

First, why does Jacob pass the birthright to Joseph's sons, and not Joseph himself?  In fact, before doing so, why does Jacob essentially say that Joseph's sons are now considered to be his sons?  What is the meaning of this?

Second, what is the significance of choosing Ephraim, the younger, over Manasseh, the older?

Finally, even though Ephraim has the birthright, the lineage of Jesus comes through Judah.  Why then, does the birthright not pass to Judah?  Why is there a disconnect between this birthright and the importance of Judah in Jesus' lineage?

Honestly, there are a lot of questions there and rather than skip around I'm going to give one really long background on the birthright and blessing. Just be glad I'm not also giving a treatment to the meaning of firstborn.

There is a TL;DR Conclusion at the end, where I will revisit each specific question.

But first there is a lot of groundwork to lay.

Birthrights and Blessings

First we must understand the meaning of the birthright and blessing.

Birthright gave the son a double portion of the inheritance (Deut 21:17). He also received authority over his father's house and carried the family name. A sort of patriarchal succession. These are very physical, earthly rewards.

The blessing is a bit less specific and often varied. But the first blessing always seems to be the greater. It also often has prophetic meaning, though the people at the time probably thought of it the other way around. That receiving a good blessing ensured the future it promised. They may have physical results, but the giving of the blessing is spiritual in nature.

Covenant with Abraham

There is a third aspect here, however, specific to Abraham's family: God's covenant with him.

Along with the land of Canaan and a promise to be the God of his children, God promised Abraham (Gen 12)

Great number of descendants (Physical)
All the families of the world be blessed through him (Spiritual)

Isaac

Isaac was recognized as Abraham's firstborn, though Ishmael was technically first, but not God's firstborn.

God pledged to establish this same covenant with Isaac specifically in Genesis 17:21, thereby leaving Ishmael out (though Ishmael does receive a lesser blessing of his own).

God also then gives Isaac a blessing when Abraham dies. Whether this was a separate blessing unique from God or this was God honoring the blessing Abraham passed to him, we cannot know for sure. Gen 25:11

  After the death of Abraham, God blessed Isaac his son.

Jacob

The pattern continues with Isaac's sons, Esau and Jacob, with Esau as the firstborn.
However, God told Rebekah that the younger would serve the older, implying that the younger would receive the birthright and/or blessing. Gen 25:23

Jacob, in fact, does get both the birthright and the blessing. This is where we first see the birthright and blessing clearly distinguished.  Esau sells his birthright, and is later cheated out of his blessing and refers to them both as separate things. Gen 27:36

  He took away my birthright, and behold, now he has taken away my blessing.”

This is also the first time the Covenant has had two legitimate sons to pass to, but instead of passing to Esau or to both Esau and Jacob, it goes solely to Jacob.

Which begs the question:
Did Abraham's Covenant follow the birthright or the blessing?
Or is it both or neither one? Well let's see:

This is Isaac's to blessing to Jacob. Gen 27:27-29

  “See, the smell of my son
  is as the smell of a field that the LORD has blessed!

  May God give you of the dew of heaven
  and of the fatness of the earth
  and plenty of grain and wine.

  Let peoples serve you,
  and nations bow down to you.
  Be lord over your brothers,
  and may your mother’s sons bow down to you.
  Cursed be everyone who curses you,
  and blessed be everyone who blesses you!”

Emphasis added by me. Do those parts sound familiar?
Genesis 22:17

  I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of his enemies,

Genesis 12:3

  I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

Also in this blessing we have bountiful wealth and the authority over his family.
So we see the birthright AND elements of Abraham's covenant being passed in Isaac's blessing.

Jacob later receives a renewal of Abraham's covenant from God himself (Gen 28:14)

  Your offspring shall be like the dust of the earth, and you shall spread abroad to the west and to the east and to the north and to the south, and in you and your offspring shall all the families of the earth be blessed.

So Jacob receives four promises:

Double inheritance from Isaac (Birthright)
Authority over his father's house. (Blessing and Birthright)
Descendants/Fruitful (Blessing and Covenant)
Bless the nations (Covenant

Quite the haul! So we see Abraham's covenant following those who receive both the birthright and the blessing in the cases of Isaac and Jacob.

Jacob's Sons

Judah was the fourth born son, but due to his older brothers Reuben, Simeon and Levi's failures he rose to the top of the legal "firstborn" rankings. (Genesis 34:25, 35:22)

Meanwhile, Joseph was given visions by God showing him that his father's household would bow down to him. Which his brothers clearly understood as a claim to the birthright's authority. However, Jacob takes note that it isn't just the brothers bowing to Jospeh but Jacob as well! This is highly unusual, for the authority of the birthright has not superseded the father's before ("mother's sons will bow").

It ends up making sense though, as Jacob and his household do end up bowing down to Joseph in Egypt under entirely different circumstances than they could have ever expected. So it seems the vision was not speaking of the birthright's authority, but was only prophetic of Joseph ruling in Egypt.

Then at the end of his life Jacob summons Joseph and his two sons, Manasseh the elder and Ephraim the younger (Gen 48). Jacob declares that they will be counted as his own sons. Not just as his own sons, but as Reuben and Simeon are. Remember who Reuben and Simeon are? The oldest two sons!

Jacob is not just adopting them into his inheritance, he is proclaiming them to be counted as the eldest! This detail is often overlooked (1 Chr 5:1)

Jacob continues on to give them their firstborn blessing, but not satisfied to have upset the normal order just once in placing them ahead of Reuben and Simeon, he crosses his arms and places his right hand on Ephraim, the younger!

First, Jacob proclaims a blessing over Joseph, which we can understand as both sons: Gen 48:15,16

  15And he blessed Joseph and said,
  “The God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked,
  the God who has been my shepherd all my life long to this day,

  16 the angel who has redeemed me from all evil, bless the boys;
  and in them let my name be carried on, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac;
  and let them grow into a multitude (or fullness) in the midst of the earth.”

Which of the four that Jacob received do we see here?

Many descendants

I will also note that Jacob says "in them let my name be carried on, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac".
It is speculation, but one can say at the least that this ensures their inclusion as equal sons and future tribes of Jacob/Israel. One could also take it to be prophetic in that the name Israel does very much carry on in Ephraim and Manasseh throughout history. Even during David's time, before the division of the kingdom, the army of the north, led by Ephraim, are called the army of Israel, while the army of the south is the army of Judah (1 King 2:32). And of course, when the kingdom is divided God says to Jeroboam the Ephraimite that He is going to be "king over Israel" and indeed the northern kingdom keeps the name of Israel, apart from Judah (1 King 11:37)

Finally, Jacob turns to bless Ephraim and Manasseh specifically, giving Ephraim the greater blessing, a prophecy of becoming great nations (Gen 48:19). Thus Jacob reinforces that while both will receive the blessing from Abraham's covenant, Ephraim receives the first and greater share.

Now Jacob gathers all his sons and gives each their own blessing, as we saw Isaac still give Esau his own blessing apart from Jacob. He gives the blessings in order of birth, not importance.

Judah is given a unique blessing in Gen 49:10

  The scepter shall not depart from Judah,
  nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet,
  until tribute comes to him;fn
  and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples.

Judah appears to be given the authority to lead. 1 Ch 5:2 affirms that though Joseph received the birthright, Judah lead the nation.

Then Joseph receives his blessing which once again affirms descendants, fruitfulness, and the blessing of God.

The Breakdown

So let's check the score:

Joseph

Fruitful Inheritance, Double Portion in Two Tribes - Birthright (Jos 17:14-18)
Great Descendants - Covenant (Also Jos 17:17)

Judah

Authority - Birthright

There is only one part missing, that all nations will be blessed through him.

Peter identifies the link in Acts 3 and Paul agrees in Galatians 3 that it is Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Son of David of the tribe of Judah who has both received the ruler's staff and in whom all the families of the earth are blessed.

TL;DR Conclusion

  First, why does Jacob pass the birthright to Joseph's sons, and not Joseph himself? In fact, before doing so, why does Jacob essentially say that Joseph's sons are now considered to be his sons? What is the meaning of this?

As I hope to have displayed above, Jacob adopted Joseph's sons as his own and as his firstborn. As for why, we can't be sure, but by doing so and by counting each as full fledged sons, he ensured Joseph received the double portion (one in each) of the birthright. Joseph is 11th in line to be the physical firstborn, but Jacob chooses him above the rest.

  Second, what is the significance of choosing Ephraim, the younger, over Manasseh, the older?

God chose Ephraim just like he chose Isaac, the son of a free woman, over Ishmael, the son of a bondservant (Gal 4). Just like God chose Jacob over Esau before he was born (Romans 9). Ephraim is God's firstborn (Jer 31:9) not man's. This is seen by the New Testament writers to show how God chooses who he wills and that he can adopt anyone as his son or daughter regardless of our physical state of birth.

  Finally, even though Ephraim has the birthright, the lineage of Jesus comes through Judah. Why then, does the birthright not pass to Judah? Why is there a disconnect between this birthright and the importance of Judah in Jesus' lineage?

Joseph is said to receive the birthright, but it is clear he does not quite get all of it. Judah receives the authority. Whilte Ephraim and Judah were the two alpha tribes of Israel , chiefs and later kings came from Judah. (1 Ch 5:2)

Jesus does come from the line of Judah, one cannot help but believe it was for David's sake (2 Ch 21:7). Whether that means God knew David would come from Judah, or whether David was who he was (a king) only because he came from Judah is up to the reader.

Ephraim, through Joseph, receives the double portion half of the birthright and the great descendants half of the Covenant (same as half the Blessing if you agree that the Covenant follows the blessing and birthright). Ephraim is God's spiritual firstborn (Jer 31:9) like Isaac and Jacob were, despite not being physical firstborns according to law.

Judah receives the authority half of the birthright and the half that blesses all the families of the earth through the Covenant. He is the physical firstborn according to law.

The spiritual and physical parallelism of Ephraim and Judah is quite evidence. Judah physically provided, or delivered, the source of blessing in Jesus and Ephraim displays God's ability to spiritually adopt and bless firstborn children from among all the families of the earth through him.


Are there any saints and/or mystics who had vision of hell and based on that made a judgment about have many people are in hell? Are there any saints and/or mystics who had vision of hell and based on that made a judgment about have many people are in hell (the majority, minority, or some kind of judgment like that)?

Are there any saints and/or mystics who had vision of hell and based on that made a judgment about have many people are in hell?

The majority of mystics and saints who have had visions of Hell, believe that the majority of souls go to Hell. But this is neither absolute or known and is often based on their personal interpretation of their visions. The truth is we do not know.

  And so it is that we are presented with quite a disconcerting appraisal as foretold by some of the Saints and Mystics of the Church! Yet, it should be noted that other Saints and Mystics have been considerably more lenient in their assessment of the proportion of those saved.

  However, for the "other side of the coin", lets take Sr. Josefa Menedez, for example. Jesus reportedly said to her:

    "Oh, all you who are steeped in sin, and who for a time more or less long have lived as wanderers and fugitives because of your crimes ... if the offences of which you have been guilty have hardened and blinded your hearts . . . if to grant satisfaction to one or other of your passions you have sunk into evil ways ... Ah! when the motives or accomplices of your sin have forsaken you, and you realize the state of your soul, oh then, do not yield to despair! For as long as a breath of life remains a man may have recourse to mercy and ask for pardon.

    "If you are still young, if already the scandals of your life have lowered you in the eyes of the world, do not be afraid. . . . Even if there is reason to treat you as a criminal, to insult and cast you off . . . your God has no wish to see you fall into the flames of hell. ... On the contrary He ardently desires you to come to Him so that He may forgive you. If you dare not speak to Him, at least look at Him and let the sighs of your heart reach Him, and at once you will find His kind and fatherly hand stretched out to lead you to the springs of pardon and life.

    "Should it happen that you have spent the greater part of your life in impiety and indifference, and that the sudden approach of the hour of death fills you with blinding despair . . . Oh! do not let yourself be deceived, for there is still time for pardon. If only one second of life remains to you, in that one second you can buy back eternal life!"  (Words of Jesus to Sr. Josefa Menendez)

  And this author would certainly be remiss if in this discussion I did not mention the extraordinary private revelations concerning Divine Mercy given to the Polish nun, St. Faustina Kowalska. One could quote literally HUNDREDS of statements of Jesus given to her concerning His infinite mercy and forgiveness towards sinners, but this one is a good representation:

    "Today I am sending you [Sr. Faustina] with My mercy to the people of the whole world. I do not want to punish aching mankind, but I desire to heal it, pressing it to My merciful Heart. I use punishment when they themselves force me to do so; My hand is very reluctant to take hold of the sword of justice." (Jesus to St Faustina Kowalska)

  Nevertheless, all the quotes and mystical private revelations above are subject to fallibility, meaning that no mortal man knows for sure the proportion of those who go to heaven vs. hell. The Saints and Mystics in the quotes above are simply giving their perspectives and opinions based on their studies, or in some cases simply relating their mystical experiences. And concerning mystical experiences of hell, some mystics like St Faustina, St Veronica Giuliani and Sr. Josefa Menendez was were notorious for being taken in spirit on numerous trips to hell, while the children visionaries of Fatima were given a very chilling vision of hell, as were many other Mystics and Saints. And concerning her visits to hell, St Faustina wrote in her Diary:

    "I, Sister Faustina Kowalska, by the order of God, have visited the abyss of Hell so that I might tell souls about it, and testify to its existence...the devils were full of hatred... It is a place of great torture."

  And speaking of Fatima and hell, it is worth remembering that at Fatima we were taught by Heaven itself (by an Angel) to pray, 'Oh my Jesus, forgive us our sins. Save us from the fires of Hell. Lead all souls to Heaven, especially those who are most in need of Thy mercy.' - Percentage of souls who go to heaven vs. hell. How many are saved?

The percentage of souls that are saved are based on personal interpretation of their own visions.

St. Padre Pio often battled the Devil in his life.

  The devil, as you know, is a great architect of iniquity. He knows this all too well. Seeing that in you such a desire is much alive, he could try to trick you with some illusion and diabolical apparition, as an angel of light. This wretched apostate even knows how to disguise himself as a Capuchin monk and can play his role very well. Believe it, I beg of you, from someone who was subjected to a similar experience. It is enough for now that which I have said about this point. To me, it seems that I have said more than that which prudence would have requested... You wage war also with Satan, both directly – with his evil suggestions, and indirectly – by means of the world and our corrupt nature. Make this wretched apostate clamour – threatening at times even to swallow you. It does not matter. He can do nothing against your soul, which Jesus has already embraced close to Himself.” - Saint Pio of Pietrelcina

Most visionaries will say that there are many souls in Hell, but few will venture to say that most souls (or few for that matter) are damned to eternal punishment based on their own private revelations. Furthermore, St. Padre Pio actually believed that the majority of souls were saved.

  "I believe that not a great number of souls go to hell. God loves us so much. He formed us at his image. God loves us beyond understanding. And it is my belief that when we have passed from the consciousness of the world, when we appear to be dead, God, before He judges us, will give us a chance to see and understand what sin really is. And if we understand it properly, how could we fail to repent?" - Close encounters of a special kind with Padre Pio: The Souls in Purgatory, The Guardian Angel, the devil.

More information may be gleaned from the following articles:

5 Saints Who Had Terrifying Visions of Hell
On July 13, 1917, Our Lady of Fatima Showed a Vision of Hell and Taught Us How to Avoid It

“You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart.” (John Martin, “Fallen Angels in Hell”, ca. 1841)


Christian significance of Tolkien and C. S. Lewis putting "heaven" across the sea? It is interesting that both of the most prominent Christian fantasy authors (not as in "Christian Fantasy" but Christians who wrote fantasy) put paradise across the sea.  I realize that Tolkien's Númenor (the place across the sea in Middle Earth where Elves go, etc.) was not actually an analog of heaven (despite my title's bait wording :), and probably traces more of its mental origins to Celtic myth and legends of Atlantis.  And I imagine that C. S. Lewis may have derived his idea of Aslan's country from discussions of Númenor with Tolkien as part of their Inkling's group.

But I'm wondering if there is anything in earlier Christian writings or thought (especially the Bible of course) that might have influenced this creative choice?

I also find it interesting that "across the sea" seems to have been picked up by some Christian musicians (Jeremy Enigk's "The Prophet" and I think there was one by Havalina Railroad Co which I can't find, there may be others).

So, lest this be considered off topic, I repeat: what is the Christian significance of the idea of a paradise across the sea (if any)?

Before Elijah was taken away into heaven, he “crossed the Jordan,” and ever since, “crossing the Jordan” has been a metaphor for dying, or crossing over into heaven. By the time of Pilgrim’s Progress (1670s or so) this was an established metaphor for gaining entry into paradise.

Now, having seen the Jordan River firsthand, I can tell you that it isn’t much larger than a creek in many parts, but in the Western European imagination it grows wider every day. As such, it being compared to a sea (long a metaphor for the underworld of death) is not a stretch.

It should also be noted that baptism — immersion in water, even if not practised that way — is explicitly tied with death and paradise in both in the Baptist and Episcopal traditions. In Baptist understanding, when one is dunked under the water they are said to be “buried with Christ and raised again.” In the Episcopal baptism ceremony, explicit reference is made to the parting of the Red Sea as we pass from death into life, all during the thanksgiving prayer over the waters.

C.S. Lewis also places heaven over the sea in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, and across space (or at least a Garden of Eden on Venus) in Perelandra, by the way.

In short, the water itself is a metaphor both for the death of sin and the passing into new life. Whether it is a river or the Red Sea is just a matter of breadth.


Are any of Arius' writings extant? In 325 CE, following the defeat of Arius at the Council of Nicea, Emperor Constantine the Great went on a campaign of book burning to eradicate all memory of Arius and his beliefs:

After the First Council of Nicea (325 CE), Roman emperor Constantine the Great issued an edict against nontrinitarian Arians which included a prescription for systematic book-burning:
"In addition, if any writing composed by Arius should be found, it should be handed over to the flames, so that not only will the wickedness of his teaching be obliterated, but nothing will be left even to remind anyone of him. And I hereby make a public order, that if someone should be discovered to have hidden a writing composed by Arius, and not to have immediately brought it forward and destroyed it by fire, his penalty shall be death. As soon as he is discovered in this offense, he shall be submitted for capital punishment....."[3]
According to Elaine Pagels, "In AD 367, Athanasius, the zealous bishop of Alexandria... issued an Easter letter in which he demanded that Egyptian monks destroy all such unacceptable writings, except for those he specifically listed as 'acceptable' even 'canonical'—a list that constitutes the present 'New Testament'".[4] (Pagels cites Athanasius's Paschal letter (letter 39) for 367 CE, which prescribes a canon but does not explicitly order monks to destroy excluded works.[5][original research?]) Heretical texts do not turn up as palimpsests, scraped clean and overwritten, as do many texts of Classical antiquity. According to author Rebecca Knuth, multitudes of early Christian texts have been as thoroughly "destroyed" as if they had been publicly burnt.[6]

The great Alexandrian library was destroyed under mysterious circumstances around that time.
So my thought is that it might be impossible to get my hands on Arius' writings. Is it? Or have any of his words survived?

Yes. As St. Alphonsus of Liguori writes in "Article 2: The Arian Heresy" §8 of his The History of Heresies p. 56:

  Noel Alexander says that these
  errors [of Arius] are taken from an impious work he wrote, called Thalia, and from an Epistle of his to St.
  Alexander, referred to by St. Athanasius, and from the Synodical Epistle of the Council of Nice, quoted by
  Socrates, St. Epiphanius, and Theodoret.


7 mentions of night in Gospel of John From reading Job 35:10 and Ps. 77:6 we understand that night is used to represent trials, a period of distress, trouble.

Then, in the Gospel of John, we can read 7 mentions of night, starting from when Nicodemus comes to Jesus (John 3).

What can we infer from this?

Well spotted.  I think you are onto something here.  The number seven is popular in John's Gospel.  There are seven signs, seven "I am" sayings, the woman at the well had five husbands plus one who was not her husband, so the One sitting at the well waiting for her is her seventh Husband, the Seventh Man in her life, her perfect Man and Husband.

This will only go so far, to encourage more thought on the question.

First off, note how the Gospel of John begins with Jesus being "the light":

  In him was life, and the life was the light of men.  The light shines in the darkness and the darkness has not overcome it (John 1:4, 5).

and

  The true light that enlightens every man was coming into the world, (John 1:9).

Now for the occurrences:-

Nicodemus ... "the same came to Jesus by night" (John 3:2)
Nicodemus says unto them (he that came to Jesus by night, being one of them) (John 7:50)
Jesus speaking ... "the night comes, when no man can work"  (John 9:4)
Jesus speaking ... "but if a man walk in the night, he stumbles, because there is no light in him" (John 11:10)
Judas Iscariot .. "having received the sop went immediately out: and it was night" (John 13:30)
"There came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pound weight" (John 19:39).
the disciples go fishing... "and that night they caught nothing" (John 21:3)

However, first note that there are seven occurrences of "night" in the Greek Received Text upon which the KJV and NKJV are based, but only six occurrences in the Greek "Revised Version" upon which most modern versions are based.  The difference is that the Greek for "night" does not appear in John 7:50 in the Greek "Revised Version".  So, eg, John 7:50 in the Revised Standard Version has translated the Greek to "Nicodemus, who had gone to him before, and who was one of them, said to them...".

With Nicodemus his first coming to Jesus was in darkness, both literally, because it was night, and spiritually because he couldn't see very much spiritual truth; he knew nothing about the new birth, he did not know that faith in Christ is what he needed.  Nicodemus was clever, well educated, knowledgeable in the Old Testament Scriptures, and even a teacher of those Scriptures - but none of these things brought him any light: only faith in Jesus can do this.

The subsequent mentions of Nicodemus show a progressive growth in love for Jesus; first he is willing to come and talk with Jesus, but only secretly at night, then he is willing to stand up for Jesus amongst his fellow religious leaders (John 7:50), and last he demonstrates a clear love for Jesus (John 19:39).  A little biographical sketch of a sinner, Nicodemus, and his progress from very great spiritual darkness into spiritual light is embedded in and throughout John's Gospel.  We must not expect people to go from darkness to light the moment they hear the gospel; we must pray for unbelievers with perseverance.  First the seed of the Word is planted in the heart, then that seed begins to grow secretly in the heart, and finally it brings forth the fruit which is plain to see.

The other mentions of "night" all carry negative or very negative connotations:  "no man can work"; "if a man walk in the night, he stumbles"; Judas Iscariot's betrayal; they caught no fish.

So, perhaps, if we do not have the Light of the World, if we do not believe on him as Nicodemus came to do we will not be able to work; we will stumble, we will betray Jesus, we will not bear any fruit.  There being seven occurrences of the word "night", maybe we could preach it since it implies that, if we do not have all our hope in Christ and Him crucified, we will fail in all these respects on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, etc... ie every day of the week, all the days of our lives. The life of an unbeliever is a continual walking in darkness, and that darkness is very great.

But if we believe on Him who is the Light of the World then we will never stumble, we will always be working for Him, never betray Him, and always bearing fruit.