According to Reformed Theology, What is the greatest assurance of Salvation? Context

Matthew 7:21-23

  Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

James 2:14-16

  What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Depart in peace, be warmed and filled," but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, "You have faith, and I have works." Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

1 Corinthians 13:2

  If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.

John 14:23-24

  Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

Question

Thus, is the greatest assurance of salvation following the words of Christ? In that -- the teachings of Christ are so impossibly hard to follow for the non-believer that only the true believer can follow them?

This response is inspired by:
http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/90-446/a-tale-of-two-sorrows

Let us compare the cases of Judas and Peter.

What can we learn?

Spiritual knowledge is not assurance of salvation. Judas likely knew more about Christ than many of the future great theologians, yet Judas fell away.
Signs is not assurance of salvation. Judas witnessed some of the greatest signs of all time, yet Judas fell away.
Discipleship + being in the right church is not assurance of salvation. Judas hung out with Christ and the 11 true disciples.

So then, what is the assurance of salvation? It's likely the love of Christ vs the love of the things that Christ can provide in this world. Peter loved Christ: John 21:15-17. Judas appeared to love what Christ could provide in this world (and thus betrayed him upon realization that the earthly kingdom would not be immediately established.)

Then, this love is manifested as in John 14:15.


Have Christians ever followed Leviticus? Has there ever been a group, or groups, of Christians that tried to follow Leviticus (not just parts of it, but all of it or most of it)?

Alternatively, what groups (Christian or otherwise) did try to follow Leviticus?

Apparently the typical view is that there is a new covenant or etc, but were there atypical Christians that tried to follow the old rules?

When it comes to questions asking "Are there any Christians that do such-and-such" it's very hard to answer, because Christianity is a very diverse group and there are highly likely to be at least a few Christians that do almost anything. However in this case I'm going to go out on a limb and answer "No". Here are my reasons.

The first part of Leviticus deals with animal sacrifice. Not just occasional sacrifice, but regular and frequent. It's unlikely that Christians would be doing this without us having heard about it. Even Jews have not followed the sacrifice rules in Leviticus since around 70AD. Additionally it is explicitly taught in Christian scripture that Christ's sacrifice has made animal sacrifices unnecessary. It's a key part of Christianity not to make the Levitical sacrifices.
A later part of Leviticus deals with clean and unclean food. Again Christians were explicitly told by God (as recorded in Acts 10) not to follow those rules.

There are Christians who spend most of their time interacting with the Jewish community, and some of them follow the dietary rules of Judaism, to avoid giving offence. That's approved of in scripture. However even they will not follow the animal sacrifice rules.

Summary: I'm pretty confident in being able to answer "no".


How is the new anti-conversion law going to affect Christians in India? There is news that Modi government likely to bring bill to prevent religious conversion in next Parliament session
There is currently this plea from persecution relief and a petition to be signed
How have such laws affected Christians in the world in the past?
And how would they affect Christians in India?
Have such laws caused any type of unity and revival of fellowship among denominations who would not otherwise fellowship with each other in the past in world history?

There's many a slip twixt cup and lip, so until an actual law is actually passed, we can only surmise. The history tag is useful to remind us that in every generation, sections of Christians in different parts of the world have had legislation enacted against them to stop their God-given commission to share the good news about Jesus everywhere. Many vicious tactics have been employed against the liberty of Christians to share the gospel with other. Yet there really is only one answer to your complex question, and it has little to do with what modern-day governments in India might do in the very near future.
You ask, "How would [such proposed laws] affect Christians in India?" As history shows, Christians will be scattered, blood will be spilled, and many people will be converted to Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit, through such adverse circumstances. As the North African Christian theologian Tertullian (circa 155-220A.D.) wrote,

"The blood of the Christians is the seed of the church" (chapter 50 of
his Apology.) [See this, Henry Bettenson's correct quote, Doctrines of the Christian Church page v.]

In other words, the more the Romans persecuted and killed Christians, the more the church grew.
Government laws to try to stop Christians encouraging people to turn in faith to Christ are counterproductive. That is because conversion to Christ is the work of the Holy Spirit, not of individual or collective Christian efforts at evangelism. Non-Christian governments always misunderstand this and think that by proscribing evangelism, conversions will more or less stop. What happens is that Christians go "underground" (as in China) with antagonistic groups grasping the legislative opportunity to turn on Christians, to betray them to the authorities, or to invent lies with which to get them accused in courts. Yet people are still converted to Christ! Baptisms keep happening. The faith of the faithful keeps growing. Yes, many professed Christians may fall away, but that does not stop conversions to Christ continuing. Why? Because that is the role of the Holy Spirit. He convicts people of their sin, giving them such a burden of sin that they cry out to God in repentance, to be forgiven. When they are freely forgiven by God, they are converted and become Christians.
No laws passed by any government has ever been able to stop this. But because ungodly governments know nothing of the things of God and of the way the Holy Spirit operates, they keep trying to suppress the Church visible, thinking they are succeeding when, hidden in plain spiritual sight are increasing conversions enacted by the Holy Spirit.
Yes, Christians undergoing such duress will find spiritual encouragement and help from those they might not normally fellowship with. This is another evidence of the Holy Spirit at work, building up the body of Christ where secular powers have tried to break it down. Despite some falling away from the faith, others remain faithful to Christ. Denominational 'identities' are seen to less important than previously supposed, under dire circumstances of persecution. Which is what anti-conversion laws designed to silence Christian witness and testimony actually is. It may be couched in apparently sensitive language, to allow for 'legitimate' or 'genuine' conversions that can be shown to be un-forced, but recent history shows many non-Christians accusing Christians of trying to bribe people into conversion when they were only helping the starving to get some food or shelter. That sort of thing.
Nobody can prognosticate and give you a precise answer as to how such proposed laws might affect Christians in India, so my answer is speaking in broadly general terms, based on what has happened to Christians in different parts of the world, at different times. Jesus promised that the Church he builds will not be overcome, not even by the gates of Hades. Those individuals who make up that spiritual 'body of Christ' will stand firm and continue to point others to Christ, by word and by deed, and the Holy Spirit will continue to do his work of conversion.


How do we make sure that we are on the rightful religion/path? I borrowed (with permission) a question from Ahmed Han

Which is:

  People of every religion claim that they are the ones in the right
  path. Even the people of sects in these religions think that they are
  on a better path than the peoples of other sects are on. How come
  could they be so sure?

  As a Muslim, how can I be sure that my religion or sect/madhab/path is
  the rightful one? How can I be sure that there isn't any other
  religion sent by Allah which is better than Islam, but it is wrongly
  advertised so that I think that it is wrong?

Change some words and we get:

People of every religion claim that they are the ones in the right path. Even the people of sects in these religions think that they are on a better path than the peoples of other sects are on. How come could they be so sure?

As a Christian, how can I be sure that my religion or denomination/path is the rightful one? How can I be sure that there isn't any other religion sent by God which is better than Christianity, but it is wrongly advertised so that I think that it is wrong?

Yah, I think this is going to be a rather subjective question, but I will take a brief stab at it:

I think the answer to this question comes down to the doctrine of sin.  If you accept the notion of a conscience, then I believe every honest person will admit to doing things they know they shouldn't (i.e. that are against their conscience).  Furthermore, I believe they will also admit that there are things they do wrong over and over again, even though they wish they would stop doing it.  If they won't admit this about their own life, surely they can look out at others and see this at play.  Just drop by your nearest AA meeting or youth counseling office.

If they are willing to look to religion to explain this phenomenon, the biblical doctrine of sin is amazingly accurate and powerful in describing this human experience.  Once the doctrine of sin is understood and accepted, it seems natural to look to the Bible for explanations to related doctrines such as corruption and death.  That, naturally should lead you to the doctrine of hell, damnation, and ultimately salvation through the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Yes, I know that was quick.

Ok, now the obligatory: you can never know for sure like you can be sure that your car battery is dead.  God didn't design it to work like that.

  We live by faith, not by sight (2 Cor 5:7)

Someone can kick and scream and complain about the injustice and lack of intellectual honesty in that position (if they are so inclined), but if we are going to be people of Christ, we must be people of His Word and it says we must live by faith in this life.

Some people argue that seeing is believing.  What they don't realize is that many people saw the works of Christ and rejected him anyway.  Even some of his disciples saw him after the resurrection and they doubted instead of worshiping him (Matt 28:17).

If you are concerned about the authenticity of Christianity, here is my advice: seriously study it, with a humble and prayerful attitude, asking God to give you clarity of understanding and faith.  Hopefully, we will then be able to say with Peter to Christ:

  Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God. (John 6:68,69)

Furthermore, if you doubt, take your doubt to the Lord.  Be honest with Him about it and ask him to give you faith.  You will not be disappointed if you seek him:

  for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him (Heb 11:6)


Do the acts of the flesh reveal false Christians? Galatians 5:

  19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and
  debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy,
  fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy;
  drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that
  those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

  16 So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh.

  22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance,
  kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control.
  Against such things there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ
  Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

In my experience, most (if not all) Christians do (or confess they do) the acts of flesh. Some say they are imperfect, they fight with this and so. But according to these verses  they don't walk by the Spirit, so they don't enjoy the fruit of self-control, they didn't crucify the flesh and therefore: they don't belong to Christ!

Is there some other valid point of view possible?

Simple answer -

You are reading too much into it.

  Romans 7:19 For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I
  do not want to do--this I keep on doing.

Paul couldn't possibly have meant that Christians could never commit acts of flesh when he himself admits doing the same.

The principle of interpretation you are using is called letterism, and I wouldn't put my money into it.


What is the purpose of marriage in light of 1 Cor 7? Or more specifically, what verses have been used to build a case that its primary purpose is for children/procreation, and how have these treatments dealt with 1 Corinthians 7:1-9? As I read this passage, especially verses 8&9, the biblical purposeS of marriage would include responsible release of sexual tension:

  8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

I'm not seeking to debate the state handing out gay marriage licenses, but my hypothesis is that the "for children" argument neglects this purpose. I've seen treatments of "procreation" arguments that explicitly condemn the sterile from marrying.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has

1604 God who created man out of love also calls him to love the fundamental and innate vocation of every human being. For man is created in the image and likeness of God who is himself love.90 Since God created him man and woman, their mutual love becomes an image of the absolute and unfailing love with which God loves man. It is good, very good, in the Creator's eyes, and this love which God blesses is intended to be fruitful and to be realized in the common work of watching over creation: "and God blessed them, and God said to them: 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it.'"91
90 Cf. ⇒ Gen 1:27; ⇒ 1 Jn 4:8, ⇒ 16.
91 ⇒ Gen 1:28; cf. ⇒ 1:31.

The primary reference for this question is Genesis 1:28 with other references, enumerated below.
The Catechism further extols the virtue of marriage with

1613 On the threshold of his public life Jesus performs his first sign — at his mother's request — during a wedding feast.105 The Church attaches great importance to Jesus' presence at the wedding at Cana. She sees in it the confirmation of the goodness of marriage and the proclamation that thenceforth marriage will be an efficacious sign of Christ's presence.
1616 This is what the Apostle Paul makes clear when he says: "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her," adding at once: "'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one. This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the Church."110
105 Cf. ⇒ Jn 2:1-11.
110 ⇒ Eph 5:25-26, ⇒ 31-32; Cf. ⇒ Gen 2:24.

Thus marriage is seen as a metaphor for the relationship between Christ and the Church:

It is God's purpose that, as husband and wife give themselves to each other in love throughout their lives, they shall be united in that love as Christ is united with his Church. [Church of England, also CCC1617]

Thus there are two purposes to marriage: to procreate, and to model the relationship between Christ and the Church. Paul's reference to burning with passion might be seen as a desire to become one flesh: to make present that relationship (even if that second purpose might not be exactly uppermost in their mind!) In that case, marry, and demonstrate it.

Gen 1:27 — So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
Gen 1:28 — And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it ..."
Gen 1:31 — And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good.
Gen 2:24 — Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.
Jn 2:1–11 — Wedding at Cana in Galilee
Eph 5:25–26 — Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word.
Eph 5:31–32 — "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." This mystery is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.
1 Jn 4:8 — He who does not love does not know God; for God is love.
1 Jn 4:16 — ...God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.


Are Catholic priests expert in exorcism? I watched the entire series of The Exorcist movie and I enjoyed it. However, I am curious if this movie is representing the reality about demons and how they are driven out by Catholic priests.

Are all Catholic priests trained to perform exorcism?
Do they cast out demons very often?
Is there any guidelines for casting out the demons or evil spirits?

Not all Catholic priests are specially trained in the sort of exorcism depicted in the film (although a particular form of exorcism is contained in the rite of baptism). Major and specific exorcism is a specialist ministry for which some are more suited than others.

Sacerdos, seu quivis alius legitimus Ecclesiae minister, vexatos a daemone exorcizaturus, ea qua par est pietate, prudentiae, ac vitae integritate praeditus esse decet.
A priest or other legitimate minister of the Church chosen to exorcize a demon should be endowed with piety, prudence and integrity of life.

While all priests are expected to be “endowed with piety, prudence and integrity of life”, only some will exhibit the levels which make them suitable to be “chosen to exorcise a demon”.
There is a manual, De Exorcismis et supplicationibus quibusdam, (Of exorcisms and certain supplications) published in 1614 and revised in 1999. The official edition is in Latin, but at least one unofficial English translation exists. The new edition acknowledges the possibility of mental illness which should not be confused with demon possession, but it does maintain that evil exists, and

The Devil and other demons can not only afflict persons (by temptation and vexation), but also places and objects, and can cause various forms of opposition and persecution of the Church.

A Guardian report on the new manual said that "All Roman Catholic dioceses have an exorcist — a priest specially appointed to the post by his bishop. But the degree to which exorcists are used is said to vary enormously, and Church officials say that in some parts of the world they are scarcely employed at all."


Why doesn't the Catholic church have prophets and apostles? The New Testament often mentions the title/calling apostle and prophet. Why don't Catholics (the largest Christian denomination) use those titles/callings? Is it because they see some biblical basis for not using them?
In Ephesians 4 (KJV) it says:

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.

And in 1 Corinthians 12:28 it says:

28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

Why don't Catholics…use those titles [apostle, prophet]?

Apostle
Fr. John Hardon defines "apostle" in his Catholic Dictionary as

A messenger and authorized representative of the sender. Broadly used in Scripture, it refers to many followers of Jesus who spread his message. More precisely, however, it applies to the original twelve men chosen by Jesus to be his immediate aides. They are referred to as disciples during the period in which he was instructing the, but following his ascension they are always called Apostles. After Pentecost they spoke and acted with confidence and assurance in teaching others what he had taught them and in assuming leadership roles in the early church. They were ordained priests by Christ at the Last Supper and were commissioned by him to preach the Gospel to all mankind (Matthew 28:19-20). (Etym. Latin apostolus, an apostle; Greek apostolos, one who is sent off.)

Prophet
Aren't prophets only known to be such after the fact?
For example, Pope Pius XII—in his encyclical promoting Catholic missions, Evangelii Praecones §27—described his predecessor, Pope Pius XI, as having "prophetic vision":

We are profoundly grieved as We behold these conditions which Our immediate Predecessor [Pope Pius XI] described with almost prophetic vision verified in many parts of the Far East.

Pope Paul VI's prediction in his 1968 encyclical Humanæ Vitæ of the damaging effects of contraception to marriage and society has also been called prophetic. He said that contraception "could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards" (§17), which has indeed occurred—e.g., as illustrated below:

(Cf. also Pope Pius XI's encyclical on marriage, Casti Connubii §§53 ff.)


What are all the different species of intelligent beings that God has created? According to scripture, what intelligent life has God created in addition to humans, angels, and demons? One example I can think of are the 4 living creatures talked about in Revelation. Then there's Cherubim, Seraphim, etc... Is there anything else?

  Revelation 4:6-8 ESV And around the throne, on each side of the throne, are four living creatures, full of eyes in front and behind: the first living creature like a lion, the second living creature like an ox, the third living creature with the face of a man, and the fourth living creature like an eagle in flight. And the four living creatures, each of them with six wings, are full of eyes all around and within, and day and night they never cease to say, “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come!”

I'd love an answer that contained the creature, where they're mentioned in scripture, and what we know about them or what they do. I'm fine with considering the prophetic visions of creatures because we don't know if those are to be taken literally or not.

Edit: I expanded the wording of the question just a little bit.

The Four Living Creatures in Revelation are also described in Ezekiel 10, when he has a vision of the Cherubim - which are either heavenly beings and/or angels depending on who you ask:

  And every one had four faces: the first face was the face of a cherub, and the second face was the face of a man, and the third the face of a lion, and the fourth the face of an eagle.

Also, to my understanding (at least in Revelation) these creatures are supposed to represent the Four Evangelists - Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Depending on your denomination and what you do or do not consider scriptural, in Mishneh Torah or Yad ha-Chazakh we have the following:

Chayot ha-Kodesh - Ezekiel Chs 1-10 (creatures)
Ophanim - also in Ezekiel Chs 1-10 ("wheels")
Erelim - Isaiah 33:7
Hashmallim - Ezekiel 1:4
Seraphim - Isaiah 6
Malakim - regular angels/messengers; seen throughout
Elohim - "godly beings" (this is why the Lord is typically called Adonai Elohim)
Bene Elohim - the sons of God/godly beings
Cherubim - we see them throughout the Bible.
Ishim - manlike beings in Genesis 18:32 and Daniel 10:5
Nephilim - sons of the fallen angels (sometimes called "Watchers"). They were giants created after the angels exchanged in relations with human women.

*note I used Judaism as the reference for the names


Why does John 1 say "the Word was with God" and not "scripture was with God"? Given that the Bible and Scripture is referred to as God's word, would the meaning of John 1:1 and John 1:14 be changed if the word 'scripture' was interchanged for the word 'word'?

  John 1:1
      In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning.

  John 1:14
      The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
  was God. (John 1:1, NIV)

  All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking,
  correcting and training in righteousness. (2 Timothy 3:16, NIV)

The Greek word for 'Word' in John 1:1 is Logos(λόγος) and 'Scripture' in 2 Timothy 3:16 is Graphey(γραφή). Though 'Word' and 'Scripture' are very much related, they are necessarily not the same.

The 'Word' in the context of John-1 is a divine entity, which is Jesus Christ, who existed in the beginning with God. 'Scripture' in the context of the Bible mostly refers to the written words of God. Scripture is a subset of the Word. The Scripture may represent the Word and illustrates the picture of the Word but it cannot fully explain it, because scriptures are written in human language which has limitations to describe Heavenly things.

We cannot say that the words we have in the Bible are the only words that God has spoken. Therefore, the Scripture that we have is not equivalent to the Word, it is only part of the Word. Hence, John 1:1 was written as such by the writer, using Word(λόγος), instead of Scripture(γραφή), where the Word refers to Jesus Christ, who is the source of Scripture.


Is there any tradition that argues for prophetical succession under the Old Testament just like some argue for Apostolic succession? Some Christians argue that Apostles are always brought into their office under the facilitation of another Apostle, like a chain of links succeeding each other.  In the Old Testament, prophets seem just to appear under the direct authority of God, but it makes me wonder is there is any tradition that puts the 'succession' concept upon their view of the Prophets also?

The only 3 Traditions that teach apostolic succession are Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Anglicanism. These Traditions do not argue for prophetic succession, simply because the biblical role of prophet is inherently different from the biblical role of apostle,  making it impossible to conceptually assign succession to both.

First, let’s compare the words apostle and prophet to see how they match up.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:

  The word "Apostle", from the Greek apostello "to send forth", "to
  dispatch", has etymologically a very general sense. Apostolos
  (Apostle) means one who is sent forth, dispatched--in other words, who
  is entrusted with a mission, rather, a foreign mission. It has,
  however, a stronger sense than the word messenger, and means as much
  as a delegate. In the classical writers the word is not frequent. In
  the Greek version of the Old Testament it occurs once, in 1 Kings 14:6
  (cf. 1 Kings 12:24). In the New Testament, on the contrary. it occurs,
  according to Bruder's Concordance, about eighty times, and denotes
  often not all the disciples of the Lord, but some of them specially
  called. It is obvious that our Lord, who spoke an Aramaic dialect,
  gave to some of his disciples an Aramaic title, the Greek equivalent
  of which was "Apostle". It seems to us that there is no reasonable
  doubt about the Aramaic word being seliah, by which also the later
  Jews, and probably already the Jews before Christ, denoted "those who
  were dispatched from the mother city by the rulers of the race on any
  foreign mission, especially such as were charged with collecting the
  tribute paid to the temple service" (Lightfoot, "Galatians", London,
  1896, p. 93). The word apostle would be an exact rendering of the root
  of the word seliah,= apostello.

See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm

The biblical usage of the word apostle denotes one who is commissioned by Jesus and is sent forth with divine authority.

  And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been
  given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of
  all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son
  and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded
  you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Matt.
  28:18-20

Jesus commanded them to baptize and teach all nations.  It is obvious that this couldn’t be accomplished by only those hearing Jesus speak.  Logically, there had to be some kind of succession to perpetuate the teaching and baptizing that Jesus commanded.  He also comforts those in which he is commissioning by telling them that he will be with them, “even to the end of the age.”

The New Testament writers commandeered the word apostle to specifically distinguish the new teaching office (magisterium) commissioned with Divine authority.

Thus the early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes:

  [W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be
  found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had
  committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from
  generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of
  the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted
  by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who
  followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look
  for it.  For the early Fathers, "the identity of the oral tradition
  with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession
  of bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles. . .
  . [A]n additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the
  message committed was to the Church, and the Church is the home of the
  Spirit. Indeed, the Church’s bishops are . . . Spirit-endowed men who
  have been vouchsafed ‘an infallible charism of truth. (Early Christian
  Doctrines, 37).

The biblical context in which the word apostle is used by the New Testament writers differs significantly from the word prophet, not only in scope, but in meaning as well.  Again, we read in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

  Judging from a comparative examination of the cognate words in Hebrew
  and the other Semitic tongues, it is at least equally probable that
  the original meaning of prophet was merely: to speak, to utter words (cf. Laur,
  "Die Prophet ennamen des A.T.", Fribourg, 1903, 14-38). The historic
  meaning of nabî' established bybiblical usage is "interpreter and
  mouthpiece of God". This is forcibly illustrated by the passage, where
  Moses, excusing himself from speaking to Pharao on account of his
  embarrassment of speech, was answered by Yahweh: "Behold I have
  appointed thee the God of Pharao: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy
  prophet. Thou shalt speak to him all that I command thee; and he shall
  speak to Pharao, that he let the children of Israel go out of his
  land" (Exodus 7:1-2). Moses plays towards the King of Egypt the role
  of God, inspiring what is to be uttered, and Aaron is the prophet, his
  mouthpiece, transmitting the inspired message he shall receive. The
  Greek prophetes (from pro-phanai, to speak for, or in the name of
  someone) translates the Hebrew accurately.

See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12477a.htm

As noted above, the biblical use of prophet seems to be generalized as someone who is called up by God to speak as His “mouthpiece.” The prophets of the Old Testament were not called by God to perpetuate a successive office, but were called up from among God’s people for a specific time, place, and purpose.

A well-known example of someone who God called to deliver a specific message is the prophet Jeremiah’s.  His sole purpose was to reveal the sins of the people and explain the reason for the impending disaster (destruction by the Babylonian army and captivity):

  And when your people say, “Why has the Lord our God done all these
  things to us?” you shall say to them, “As you have forsaken me and
  served foreign gods in your land, so you shall serve foreigners in a
  land that is not yours.” Jeremiah 5:19

The intrinsic differences between the meanings of these 2 words seem to imply that successive offices are not relative to the Old Testament prophets. Both the Old Testament Prophets and the Apostles have the common function of delivering a message.  However, the Apostles were given authoritatively teaching offices that were (and are) to be handed down to “all nations” and “even to the end of the age.”

Although succession of prophecy isn’t explicitly displayed in the Old Testament, succession of authority, is very evident in the Old Testament.  The succession of official authority in the Old Testament foreshadows not only apostolic succession, but also apostolic authority as well.

There are 2 parallel phrases in both the Old and New Testament that explicitly display God’s design for  apostolic authority and succession; “Keys to the Kingdom,” and “bind and loose.”

There is a passage in the Old Testament where Isaiah is prophesying that there will be a dramatic change in the Kingdom of David.  Here we find an example of a prophet prophesying that a change will take place in the successive office of the king’s royal steward, or vizier.

  This is what the Lord, the LORD Almighty, says: “Go, say to this
  steward, to Shebna the palace administrator:  What are you doing here
  and who gave you permission to cut out a grave for yourself here,
  hewing your grave on the height and chiseling your resting place in
  the rock? I will depose you from your office, and you will be ousted
  from your position. “In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son
  of Hilkiah.  I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash
  around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to
  those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah. I will place
  on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one
  can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.  I will drive him like a
  peg into a firm place; he will become a seat of honor for the house of
  his father. All the glory of his family will hang on him: its
  offspring and offshoots—all its lesser vessels, from the bowls to all
  the jars.  (Is. 22:15-16, 19-24)

Speaking for God, Isaiah proclaims, “And I will place on his (Eliakim’s) shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” King Hezekiah ascended to the throne of David in 715 b.c. and ruled the land of Judah.  The key of David was on the shoulder of Shebna, the royal steward.  Isaiah prophesies that Shebna will be removed from his office and the key of David will be given to Eliakim, his successor.  The key of David, the key of God’s kingdom, belongs to Jesus.  He has come to restore the throne of David.  God binds himself with his people with covenants.  God made a covenant with David that his throne would be forever.

  When your days are over and you rest with your ancestors, I will raise
  up your offspring to succeed you, your own flesh and blood, and I will
  establish his kingdom.  He is the one who will build a house for my
  Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. (2 Sam.
  7:12)

The kings of the Davidic covenant were the proud possessors of the “key of David,” signifying unquestioned royal authority.  Jesus possesses these keys as the heir to David’s throne, and he established a new covenant, and eternal covenant.  This covenant was for all men, and was not limited to the Jews of the Nation of Israel.

The keys of a kingdom have always been the sign of authority, and they belong exclusively to the king.  Kings, however, would delegate the keys to the stewards or viziers of their kingdom.  Jesus ascended to the throne of David and then, through his death and resurrection, extended the covenant to all men, not just to the Jews.  God gave him all authority in heaven and earth; he was now king of the eternal kingdom of God.  He was the proud possessor of the royal keys of God’s kingdom.

Roughly 750 years after Isaiah delivered God's message of this shift in authority, Jesus resurrects this message in order to signify that the time has come for the true King to ascend the throne of David.  We read in the Gospel of Matthew that Jesus recites the passage in Isaiah 22 practically verbatim.

  Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living
  God.” Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this
  was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in
  heaven.  And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will
  build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will
  give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth
  will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be
  loosed in heaven.” Matt. 16:17-19

We first see from this passage that Peter delivers a prophecy that could only come from God the Father.  Jesus responds to Peter’s prophetic message, “..for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.” Jesus continues by prophetically echoing the words that Isaiah had spoken 7 centuries earlier be saying,  “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Both passages are identical  in 2 key ways.  Both involve the key of the house of David, and both involve the juridical authority to bind and loose in the name of the King. Later, in Matthew 18, Jesus also authorizes this power to bind and loose for the rest of the Apostles.

Just as the Old Testament clearly testifies to an office of succession within the kingdom of God, the New Testament also indicates that Jesus established offices of succession.

There are other examples that imply succession in the Old Testament, but they do not directly pertain to any of the prophets.

In Exodus 18:25-26, Moses appoints various heads over the people of God. We see a hierarchy, a transfer of authority and succession.

  And choosing able men out of all Israel, he appointed them rulers of
  the people, rulers over thousands, and over hundreds, and over
  fifties, and over tens.  And they judged the people at all times: and
  whatsoever was of greater difficulty they referred to him, and they
  judged the easier cases only.

Numbers 3:3 shows us that the sons of Aaron were formally "anointed" priests in "ordination" to minister in the priests' "office."

  These the names of the sons of Aaron the priests that were anointed,
  and whose hands were filled and consecrated, to do the functions of
  priesthood.

Numbers 16:40 displays God's intention of unbroken succession within His kingdom on earth. Unless a priest was ordained by Aaron and his descendants, he had no authority.

  That the children of Israel might have for the time to come
  wherewith they should be admonished, that no stranger or any one that
  is not of seed of Aaron should come near to offer incense to the Lord,
  lest he should suffer as Core suffered, and all his congregation,
  according as the Lord spoke to Moses.

The passage in Numbers 27:18-20 shows God's intention that, through the "laying on of hands," one is commissioned and has authority.

  And the Lord said to him: Take Josue the son of Nun, a man in whom is
  the Spirit, and put thy hand upon him. And he shall stand before
  Eleazar the priest and all the multitude: And thou shalt give him
  precepts in the sight of all, and part of thy glory, that all the
  congregation of the children of Israel may hear him.

We see that in Deuteronomy 34:9 that Moses laid hands upon Joshua, and because of this, Joshua was obeyed as successor, full of the spirit of wisdom.

Summation:

The question, “..is there is any tradition that puts the 'succession' concept upon their view of the Prophets also?” is obviously directed toward Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Anglicanism.  These are the only 3 “traditions” that teach apostolic succession.  As demonstrated above, the biblical role of prophet is inherently different from the biblical role of apostle, therefore making it impossible to conceptually assign succession to both. This is why none of these 3 "traditions" argue for Old Testament prophetical succession.


Who compared the Trinity to a triangle with three right angles? Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464), wrote in part 1, chapter 12 of his De docta ignorantia (1440):

  Others who are very talented compared, to the Super-blessed Trinity, a triangle consisting
  of three equal right angles. 1

  Alii peritissimi Trinitati superbenedictae triangulum trium aequalium et rectorum angulorum compararunt.

I think we are all aware of representations of the Trinity using an equilateral plane triangle. The triangle described by Nicholas is not possible in the plane, though it makes sense on the surface of a sphere, for example. He seems to imagine it (see ch. 19) as a planar figure having three infinite sides, and argues that the angles must necessarily be equal and as large as possible. 2

Setting aside any mathematical problems with his geometry, I'm curious about the origin of this image. It would seem to be related to other geometric metaphors for God, such as "an infinite line" or "a circle whose centre is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere". But I have not heard this one before.

Who came up with this idea and what did they mean by it?

(By the way, the "others" in the quotation above means "some people who are not Anselm" in context. I thought he might be talking about himself, but I don't know if there is another, earlier work of his which contains this triangle image. It seems to crop up in De venatione sapientiae chapter 26, but he says in its preface that he is 61 years old, which would make it later than De docta ignorantia. It's still possible that he's attributing his own belief to some deliberately-unnamed expert, but if so then I'd still like to find a definitive argument to that effect.)

1. Translation by Jasper Hopkins (1985) and appearing in his Complete Philosophical and Theological Treatises of Nicholas of Cusa, Arthur J. Banning Press, 2001. Parallel texts from Cusanus-Portal.
2. It's not clear why he thinks they must be right angles. In some sense it would be more consistent with his reasoning for them all to be 180 degrees, which is one reason to believe that in this case, he's talking about someone else's idea.

The likely1 source for this image is Nicholas's mentor, Heymeric de Campo (1395-1460),
who wrote a treatise on a geometric figure he called the "seal of eternity" 2. This is
related to the well-known image of the "shield of faith",
a triangular diagram representing the persons of the Trinity. Unlike the shield, Heymeric's picture
is a regular geometric picture; the various lines are coloured; and the interpretation is more
complex. Note that the central point does not represent God - the whole picture is "an image of
the divine government" (figura thearchica).

As shown above, there is an equilateral triangle within a circumscribing circle. In addition,
three radii of the circle are drawn to connect with the points of the triangle. Heymeric writes:

  three lines dropping down perpendicularly from these three angles [of the triangle] towards the centre of the circle
  tres lineas ab illis tribus angulis supra centrum eiusdem circuli perpendiculariter cadentes deorsum

That is, these lines are orthogonal to the circle at the point of intersection; the angle of the triangle itself is not a right angle. Heymeric tends to call them funiculi, little cords. The colours are not reproduced in Imbach and Ladner - the picture above is based on my interpretation of Heymeric's description,

  The first side of the triangle, with the portion of the circle of which it is the chord,
  and the dependent line from its angle of origin, is to be blue in colour.
  latus primum trianguli cum porcione circuli cuius est corda et linea dependente ab eius angulo
  originali sit coloris blavei [and then similarly for the other colours]

According to Heymeric, the circle represents perfection, the points of the triangle are the
persons of the trinity, and the funiculi are the efficient, exemplary, and final causes
of Aristotelian-Scholastic philosophy. These are justified with reference to three Biblical
quotations,

  From him and through him and for him are all things (Romans 11:36)
  A threefold cord is not easily broken (Ecclesiastes 4:12)
  God has weighed out the dust of the earth with three fingers (Isaiah 40:12)

The last one follows Jerome's interpretation of the Hebrew word בַּשָּׁלִ֖שׁ (Strong's 7991), which has various
meanings related to the number three; depending on context, it may refer to an officer
"of the third rank", a triangular musical instrument such as a nabla/nevel, or, as here,
a unit of measure of some kind. The three colours stand for celestial substance (blue),
life (green), and flame (red), corresponding to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
It would be tempting to imagine some knowledge of the RGB colour system, but Heymeric is
writing long before Newton, let alone Young and Helmholtz.

The bulk of Heymeric's treatise consists of a point-by-point explication of how this
figure represents the Trinitarian doctrine of Thomas Aquinas, as described in Book 1
of his Summa contra Gentiles. For example, the concept "God is blessed and his
blessedness exceeds all other blessedness" (SCG 1.100-102)
is expressed by the fact that the figure may be geometrically expanded to
any desired size (para. 66, f. 84v); and "Creatures may carry a resemblance to God"
(SCG 1.29) by the radii,
representing causality, that drop down like rays of light (para. 45, f. 83r).
In particular, the orthogonality of these lines to the circle is used almost as a pun,
for the "rectitude" and "rightness" of God, whenever these ideas arise in the comparison.

In the adaptation by Nicholas of Cusa, the diagram is "really" meant to be infinite,
so that (according to his mathematics) the component parts merge into an indistinguishable unity.
This mirrors the continual assertion of Heymeric that the figure is only a metaphor,
suitable to our senses and imagination, of something transcendental; and both authors are
known for their insistence on the fallibility of human reasoning.

1. Paul Wilpert. De docta ignorantia / Die belehrte Unwissenheit, volume 1.
Hamburg: Felix Meiner, 1964 (1st ed.). Note at 15a.120.n34.
2. Tractatus de sigillo eternitatis omnium arcium et scienciarum exemplari
a magistro Heymerico de Campo Basilee tempore concilii editus. In Cusanusstift
MS 106, f. 77r - 85r. Written between 1432 and 1435. The Latin quotations in this answer
are reproduced from Heymericus de Campo Opera Selecta, volume 1,
Ruedi Imbach and Pascal Ladner (eds.), Univ. Freiburg Schweiz, 2001. The English translation is my own fault.


Was Jesus' time in the wilderness the only time that He encountered Satan on Earth? Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.” Matthew 4:1-3

Was Jesus' time in the wilderness the only time (recorded in the Bible) that He encountered Satan on Earth?

That is the only time it is given as a specific account of a face-to-face meeting. But, Satan was always there behind the scenes such as:

When Jesus told Simon Peter:

And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: [Luke 22:31 KJV]

We are not privy to that conversation between Jesus and Satan in the Biblical narrative, but it must have occured somewhere, sometime.

When Jesus told Simon Peter:

From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. [Matthew 16:21-23 KJV]

Jesus saw the influence of Satan working through Peter, to oppose the plan of God.

Many of Jesus' healings were to undo the works of Satan:

And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day? [Luke 13:16 KJV]

Jesus knew when Satan had entered Judas Iscariot:

Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly. [John 13:26-27 KJV]

When Jesus was born, Satan was the one who influences king Horod to kill all the baby boys under two years of age, to try to get rid of Him.

Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men. [Matthew 2:16 KJV]

I am sure that there are many more. Even though Satan might not have been in Jesus' face, from a human standpoint, he was always there to oppose Him any way he could.


The bronze snake in numbers and the serpent Lucifer In Numbers 21:4-9, Moses makes a bronze serpent on a stick to heal the Hebrews' snake bites, as per God's instructions. They don't worship it, but they are to look at it in order to live.

Why did God order a statue of a serpent knowing very well that a serpent is used to refer to Satan himself(Genesis 3:1)??? Help me understand the connection between the serpent used by God and the one symbolising His adversary...

Dr. Michael Heiser, a scholar in Old Testament and the Ancient Near East, wrote this article Why Would Jesus Compare Himself to a Snake? explaining how the serpent reference in Genesis 3 is NOT the same as the serpent reference in Numbers 21:

We might incorrectly link the serpent on the pole (Num 21) and the serpent in the garden (Gen 3), but the only similarity between these two passages is the word “serpent” (נחש, nachash). The nachash of Genesis 3 is a figure acting independently of—and in opposition to—the will of God. In Numbers 21 the biting serpents are God’s instrument of judgment for sin, and the nachash on the pole is God’s instrument of healing for those punished for sin.

Then he explored 3 possible explanations why God used the serpent symbolism in Numbers 21:

Magic

Regenerative healing power, common in ancient Near East

Egyptian symbol of protection

He concluded with Jesus's use of this passage:

Some of these messages are conveyed in both Numbers 21 and John 3:14–15. First, Yahweh was not a God with which to trifle. He could punish faithlessness by commanding the forces of nature—sending venomous serpents against the Israelites. But He also had the power to reverse the effects, offering His divine healing through a bronze serpent. Healing came with one condition: The Israelites had to exercise faith in the offer.
Jesus’ use of this test of the “obedience of faith” creates a fitting analogy to His own destiny. Death, the natural world’s most consuming force, would be reversed for all who looked to Jesus, raised up on the pole of the cross—if only the afflicted would believe.


What priesthood did the line of Adam from Seth to Melchizedek and Noah hold in LDS/Mormon teaching? In the summary of Noah on the lds.org site, it states that Noah was ordained to the priesthood at the age of 10 by Methuselah, his grandfather.  Furthermore, in D & C 107:53, it indicates that the entire line of Adam from Seth to Methuselah were all high priests.

I understand that there are two priesthoods acknowledged by the LDS Church--the Aaronic Priesthood and the Melchizedek Priesthood.

The Aaronic Priesthood originated with Aaron during the Exodus.  Melchizedek was a contemporary of Abraham, who lived a few hundred years after the flood.

Methuselah lived before the flood and apparently died the year of the flood, while Noah lived on both sides of the flood, of course, as did 7 other members of his family.

So, what specific priesthood did the line of Adam from Seth to Noah hold that would have to predate the other two priesthoods by at least four centuries?

The crux of this question seems to lie in the final paragraph:

  So, what specific priesthood did the line of Adam from Seth to Noah
  hold that would have to predate the other two priesthoods by at least
  four centuries?

The confusion leading to this question is cleared up in Doctrine and Covenants, section 107:

  2 Why the first [order of Priesthood] is called the Melchizedek Priesthood is because
  Melchizedek was such a great high priest.

  3 Before his day it was called the Holy Priesthood, after the Order
  of the Son of God.

  4 But out of respect or reverence to the name of the Supreme Being,
  to avoid the too frequent repetition of his name, they, the church, in
  ancient days, called that priesthood after Melchizedek, or the
  Melchizedek Priesthood.

Therefore, the Priesthood from the time of Adam to Noah was the Melchizedek Priesthood; it just wasn't called that yet.


When & where did the word "Christian" originate? The word "Christian" very rarely used in the new testament to refer to those that trust/believe on Jesus.

Mostly they were simply called "believers".

When/where and by who coined the word "Christian"?

Actually, the word Christian is used three times in the New Testament. The first occasion answers your question (Acts 11:26c):

  It was at Antioch that the believers were first called Christians.

Regarding ''how'' they came to be called Christians, Wikipedia states:

  Kenneth Samuel Wuest holds that all three original New Testament verses' usages reflect a derisive element in the term Christian to refer to followers of Christ who did not acknowledge the emperor of Rome. The city of Antioch, where someone gave them the name Christians, had a reputation for coming up with such nicknames


According to Catholic Church, what does it mean to worship God in spirit and truth? We see Jesus telling the Samaritan woman at Jn 4: 23-24 (NRSVCE) :

"But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such as these to worship him.   God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”

See that Jesus repeats the phrase 'worship in spirit and truth', implying that he attaches much importance to it. Here, spirit and truth are components of a single integrated concept and are not separated from each other. While he explains ìn spirit 'by attributing it to the nature of God who is spirit, he does not elaborate the phrase `in truth'.  Of course, he says elsewhere: "I am the way, the truth and the life " (Jn 14:6).
We also see Jesus telling Pilate :

“You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”

Though we see Pilate putting a question to Jesus on what truth is (Jn 18:38), he does not get an answer from Jesus; rather, he does not wait for one.
My question therefore is: How does the Catholic Church explain the term 'to worship in spirit and truth' as used by Jesus at Jn 4: 23-24?

According to Catholic Church, what does it mean to worship God ”in Spiritu et Veritate”?
These words are taken to the deep profound meanings of the vary essence and meaning of what prayer, adoration and union with God details in a faithful’s worship of God and all that pertains to the Divine realities while still in this life on earth.
I’ll try my best to explain what it mean to pray in spirit and truth!
To start with I will be basing my response on the works of two Catholic authors. Others exist, but these two will get my point out.
The first one is Fr. Réginald Marie Garrigou-Lagrange OP, known by the nickname as Sacred Monster of Thomism. While at the Angelicum, in Rome from 1909 to 1960, he wrote his magnum opus, The Three Ages of the Interior Life (Les Trois Ages de la Vie Interieure) in 1938. This work shows us how to pray and advance towards union with God through prayer, meditation and those practices which are helpful in our spiritual life to attain perfection in a life of prayer. He masters he work with theological perspective due to his station in life. Perhaps the most famous of his students was the future Pope John Paul II, who was supervised by Garrigou-Lagrange for his doctoral research in the mid-1940s at the Angelicum, and whose encyclical Fides et Ratio is attributed to his training under the learned Dominican.
The second person I will employ to help us in understanding this concept is the Abbess Cécile Bruyère, OSB. Mother Cécile's spiritual thought and teaching, entirely inherited from Dom Guéranger but presented with the benefit of many years' experience in Benedictine life and meditation, is well summarised in her book La vie spirituelle et l'oraison, d'après la Sainte Ecriture et la tradition monastique (The Spiritual Life and Prayer: According to Holy Scripture and Monastic Tradition). In this work, she explains the primary importance of the liturgy in the religious life in developing the specific grace arising from the sacrament of baptism.
Both authors are explain how to attain union with God though genuine prayer or true worship. Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange writes from a theological perspective, while Mother Cécile writes from a more practical and tradition point of view. The end result is the same: Attaining union with God through prayer.
The phrase to ”worship God in spirit and truth”, if in essence the manner of praying with our whole being to become in complete union with is spirit and in truth. Simply put it is a lifestyle of prayer based on genuine, deep and profound way of living in such a manner.
Some Catholic writer(s) have compared St Paul's vision of the ”third heaven” to the third or final stage or way of perfection.
This concept is not easy for many to understand. Many authors have written about the Ways of Perfection, For example, both Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange and Mother Cécile used St. Paul's vision of 2 Corinthians 12:1-7 as a comparison to the unitive state of prayer.

Paul’s Vision and His Thorn
12 I must go on boasting. Although there is nothing to be gained, I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord. 2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows. 3 And I know that this man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows— 4 was caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell.* 5 I will boast about a man like that, but I will not boast about myself, except about my weaknesses. 6 Even if I should choose to boast, I would not be a fool, because I would be speaking the truth. But I refrain, so no one will think more of me than is warranted by what I do or say, 7 or because of these surpassingly great revelations. Therefore, in order to keep me from becoming conceited, I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me.

In Catholic thought the three stages (ways,state) of interior life or prayer are the purgative stage, the illuminative stage and the unitive stage.
In one’s spiritual journey, Catholic spirituality generally notes three basic “ways” or “stages” of the interior life (or spiritual life) through which the soul must pass that draws one into deeper union with God: the Purgative, the Illuminative, and the Unitive. Those who seek union with God must realize that such union, while always the gift of God, still requires a process, often painful, that must “pave the way” for that union. Look at it this way: If a box is filled with sand, it cannot be filled with gold. The lives must be cleaned, and then there is room enough for the gold of God’s presence.
The Purgative Way: The Purgative Way is the first stage in mental prayer, according to the teachings of the great Carmelite mystics St. Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross. The soul’s chief concern in this stage of perfection is an awareness of its sins, sorrow for the past, and a desire to expiate the offenses against God.
The Purgative Stage: In this stage, our desires and affections must be “purged” of attractions to sin. The disorder caused by sin must be set aright by the Lord, for a disordered soul cannot perceive or appreciate well enough the glory and beauty of God. The distractions of the world must be diminished and wrongful passions, attachments, and evil inclinations must be subjugated so that we can more easily overcome temptations and preserve and exercise the virtue of charity. There is a focus, too, in this stage of uprooting the remnants and bad habits of former sins, perhaps through mortifications, the practice of austerity and simplicity, and the submitting of our will to be in conformity with the will of God. We seek to diminish and “purge” the attraction of wrongful or excessive pleasures. We also seek to diminish our natural shrinking from pain and to develop a repugnance to whatever is contrary to the will of God. The main virtue to be cultivated within this purgative stage is humility, which helps us be aware of our own weakness and our dependence on the grace of God.
The Illuminative Way: The Illuminative Way is the second stage between “purification” and “union” on the path to Christian perfection. Also called the “Way of the Proficients,” the main feature of the Illuminative Way is enlightenment of the mind in the ways of God and a clear understanding of His will in one’s own state of life. Most souls with not get passed this stage in their spirituality.
The Illuminative Stage: Those attaining this stage have made progress and have their passions better under control of the will, so that they more easily keep themselves from mortal sin, but they still do not easily avoid venial sins since they still take pleasure in earthly things and are distracted by various imaginations and desires, not all of which are necessarily unlawful, but which may get in the way of a deeper union with God. In this stage, the mind becomes more and more enlightened to spiritual things and the practice of virtue. Love is stronger and the soul seeks progress in the spiritual life and in all the virtues. But purgation is still somewhat incomplete, and the purification of the senses is not yet completed. There are also aridities, difficulties, and trials, sometimes more severe than in the past, and the need to endure suffering from temptations.
The Unitive Way: The Unitive Way is the third and final stage of Christian perfection, beyond the Purgative and Illuminative. Its principal feature is a more or less constant awareness of God’s presence, and a habitual disposition of conformity to the will of God. Although commonly regarded as the last stage in the spiritual life, it is recognized that the three traditional levels of progress in holiness are not necessarily chronological. They may be present, in greater or lesser degree, at any point during a person’s growth in holiness and sanctity.  This is an important point to remember.
The Unitive Stage: This is the way of those who have their minds detached from temporal things, such that they enjoy great peace, and are not agitated by various desires, nor are they moved to any great extent by sinful passion. Having been largely purged of these things, they have their minds fixed chiefly on God. It is called “unitive” since, at this stage, there is a “union” with God by love and the actual experience and exercise of that love.
It is at this final stage that those accustomed to be united to God receive those great mystic graces of interior allocations directly from Jesus and so on.
The graces expressed in such vivid light in  Mother Cécile‘s works are so easily understood that I personally can not imagine that she, herself had not attained this level of union with God. She had to have experienced the graces received in order to be able to explain a life of prayer In Spiritu et Veritate.


Christ doesn't come back until ______? Every now and then you hear someone set a date for Christ’s return.

Such dates are bound to fail –

  Matthew 24:36  "No one knows about that day or hour ... "

And when they do fail -

  (Issac Newton) was wary of prophetic date-setting. Newton was worried
  that the failure of fallible human predictions based on divine
  prophecy would bring the Bible into disrepute. (Source)

To stop the doomsayers -

  He estimated that the world would end no earlier than 2060. In
  predicting this he said "This I mention not to assert when the time of
  the end shall be, but to put a stop to the rash conjectures of
  fanciful men who are frequently predicting the time of the end, and by
  doing so bring the sacred prophesies into discredit as often as their
  predictions fail. (Source)

Now my question -

What is the time or events before which Christ couldn't return no matter what? (to put a stop to the rash conjectures of fanciful men and satisfy my curiosity)

I believe the only possible answer to this question, that all Christians can agree with is:

  For you*, Christ cannot possibly return any sooner than right now.

All anyone can know is that Christ has not yet come, but that he will come in the future.  That may be in five seconds, or in 50,000 years. Biblical prophecies are not specific enough that it is possible to come to any consensus as to what specific historical events they might refer to.

The fact that people have been making specific predictions of the second coming for centuries should be the first clue that not everyone will agree there are still specific events that "must" occur before the second coming.

* Some believe that Christ's second coming is referring to a person's individual judgment at the time of death. In that view, the second coming has already occurred for everyone who has died, and is still in the future for everyone else.


How do spiritual fathers of Catholic Church explain a sudden urge to pray? I'd like to know how Catholic spiritual masters explain the urge to pray. Is it considered inspired by the Holy Spirit? Should we surrender to that urge?
I was doing some research on that topic, but I didn’t find any reference from a Catholic perspective.

The Holy Ghost gives grace to help us begin to pray.

"Should we surrender to that urge?" We should "pray without ceasing" (1 Thes. 5:17).

Since we cannot do anything without Christ (Jn. 15:5: "without me you can do nothing"), the Holy Ghost needs to give us initial, prevenient* grace before we can even begin a good action of prayer.*"Prevenient" literally means "coming before"; prevenient grace is the initial unmerited grace that comes before other graces.

We grow in charity by making more intense acts of charity, which are begun under the Holy Spirit's initiative. Prayer is a means toward the end of growth in charity (perfection).

From Fr. Antonio Royo Marín, O.P.'s excellent Theology of Christian Perfection p. 408:

  Without the actual prevenient grace, man can do absolutely nothing in the supernatural order, and without the more intense grace, the more intense act [of charity] is impossible. That actual grace which is more intense cannot be merited, for this would be a contradiction*; but it can be infallibly impetrated [asked of God], although under a gratuitous title, through prayer which fulfills the necessary conditions.

*Because then the effect (more intense charity) would be greater that the cause (less intense charity); cf. axiom 6.4: "The cause is greater than the effect."

Every change (e.g., from a state of non-prayer to a state of praying) is due to God, the Unmoved Mover / Unchanging Changer.


Is there a story in the Bible about a certain person named Cartaphilus? Where is it located in the Bible about the man whom was cursed to walk the face of the earth forever? (I believe his name was Cartaphilus.)

The Story of Cartaphilus or as more commonly known as the Wandering Jew is simply a legend and cannot be found in any Bible Scriptures whatsoever.

In a nutshell the legend goes like this:

  Cartaphilus (or, Cartophyllus) in Christian legend, was a Roman soldier who was doorkeeper at the entrance to the palace of Pilate at the time of Our Lord's crucifixion. When Jesus was led out thence, and went too slow for Cartaphilus, the latter struck him with his hand, and mockingly said, "Faster, Jesus, faster; why tarriest thou?" But Jesus pitifully looked at him, and said, "I go, but thou shalt tarry until I come again!" In fulfillment of the Savior's prophecy, Cartaphilus still waits in tears and anxiety for the judgment, and only the Savior's own merciful prayer sustains him: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." This is the basis, of the fable about the Wandering Jew (q.v.). See Meth. Quar. Rev. July, 1882.


Which type of Baptism is preferred in today Catholic Parishes? Didache 7

  Concerning baptism, you should baptize this way: After first
  explaining all things, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the
  Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in flowing water. But if you have no
  running water, baptize in other water; and if you cannot do so in cold
  water, then in warm. If you have very little, pour water three times
  on the head in the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. Before the
  baptism, both the baptizer and the candidate for baptism, plus any
  others who can, should fast. The candidate should fast for one or two
  days beforehand.

According to this old document(~70 AD), here are four possible ways of Baptism, in order of preference.

Running water (Ocean, River etc.)
Still and cold water (Lake, pool, tanks etc.)
Still but warm water
Pouring on the head 3 times (least and exceptional case)

This article on Immersion Baptism is also in favor of immersion. Catechism of the Catholic Church 1239 says

  The essential rite of the sacrament follows: Baptism properly
  speaking. It signifies and actually brings about death to sin and
  entry into the life of the Most Holy Trinity through configuration to
  the Paschal mystery of Christ. Baptism is performed in the most
  expressive way by triple immersion in the baptismal water. However,
  from ancient times it has also been able to be conferred by pouring
  the water three times over the candidate's head.

As per the CCC, there are two types of Baptism, immersion and pouring. Which one is in common practice today? Which one is preferred today?

Is immersion still practiced in Catholic Parishes today?

From my service/experience in the Archdiocese of Atlanta I have observed that, like the CCC states, triple immersion is preferred, but the pouring of water 3 times is much more common.

The variables that determine how each parish baptizes its members are numerous and overlapping, but usually can be lumped into several main categorical reasons.

Location - The majority of Catholic Churches (at least in Georgia) are not located near large bodies of water (i.e. rivers, lakes, oceans).   From a logistical standpoint this makes it difficult for Baptismal Masses to be performed by immersion.  From what I understand, 3rd world civilizations tend to gravitate toward significant bodies of water, which might be a logical reason as to why immersion baptisms are more frequently performed in these conditions. During the apostolic era, which is when the Didache was written, living conditions would perhaps be considered "3rd world" by today's standards.  There are special pilgrimages offered for catechumens to participate in that symbolically reenacts the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan River.

See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC-w4k7TgCU

Architecture - Vatican II ushered in a slew of architectural ideas and innovations. Some where for the better, some for the worse.  At any rate, this allowed more possibilities for parish councils and pastors to design how the "church" should function.  These changes also made it easier for local communities to establish new parishes (which are called missions until permanent church membership reaches a certain level) by purchasing previously used protestant churches.  This is the case with my own parish, St. Katharine's.

You can see a picture of our baptismal font here: http://saintkatharine.wix.com/trenton#!services/c24jx

6 years ago we purchased an old Methodist church building from the Dade County Historical Society and modified its structure to house our liturgies.  It was 101 years old at the time, and had no means of performing baptism by immersion. It was only possible within our parish's budget to buy a baptismal font - which leads me to my next reason.

Money - Baptismal pools are extremely expensive. Most of the Churches I've encountered with baptismal pools are located in a very wealthy area, or have 1000+ members. Parishes with large numbers have a high need for catechumens and children to be baptized, and usually set aside more money to put towards luxuries of that nature. Below is a picture I took of a fully functional baptismal pool located in Dunwoody, Ga, complete with a steady flow of warm water.

There are countless other factors that determine how a local parish baptizes its members. From apostolic times until now, the Church has faithfully baptized all walks of life from all corners of the world in every generation.  This is why the various forms of baptism have been adapted and permitted, while maintaining the true matter and form that is required.


Is it okay for Christians to study philosophy? With this question I regard the general makeup of philosophy. Many claim that both philosophy and Christianity contradict and therefore cannot coexist. I do not mention this to ask, 'can a Christian study philosophy,' because it obviously is possible. Many philosophers have made themselves famous by finding clever ways to isolate and hide evidence of a God and the discoveries by them is what is fundamentally taught, so I ask, is it okay for Christians to study philosophy?

Let's take a look at Paul.

The book of Acts details the spread of the Gospel from Jerusalem into wider Judea and Samaria, then off through Syria, Asia, Greece, before it concludes with Paul preaching the Gospel in the capital city of the Roman Empire. If we follow along with the way the Christians are preaching the Gospel, we find that once they start talking to Gentiles the references to the Hebrew scriptures drop dramatically.

When we arrive at Acts 17, Paul is standing in the Areopagus, preaching the Gospel to Greek philosophers. He doesn't quote the Law or the Prophets or the Psalms, because they have (little to) no experience with the Hebrew scriptures. Instead, Paul quotes (from memory!) passages from Aratus' Phaenomena and Epimenides' Cretica (Acts 17.28).

And when we read Paul's personal letters, we find: he paraphrases the thought process found in the Jewish book Wisdom of Solomon (Romans 1.18-32; and probably in several other places), he cites Menander's Thais (1 Corinthians 15.33), and again from Epimenides' Cretica (Titus 1.12).

These were works of drama, poetry, and wisdom, both Jewish and Gentile. Paul certainly didn't agree with everything he found in those books, but he had no problems reading them and assimilating some of, in his mind, their best points. And really, Paul's magnum opus, his letter to the Romans, functions as a philosophical argument.

Yes, Christians may study philosophy.


Did Jesus perform a single miracle before his fast and temptation? Did Jesus perform a single miracle before his 40 day fast and temptation by the Devil?

None of the four Gospels record Jesus performing a miracle prior to his temptation in the wilderness.  Matthew, Mark, and Luke all record Jesus' baptism and immediately follow it with his temptation in the wilderness.  John does not mention the temptation: after Jesus's baptism, he begins calling his disciples and then performs "the first of his signs" – the replacing of water with wine (John 2:1–12).

On its face, this may seem conclusive, but we must remember that (1) the gospels are not exhaustive accounts of all the things Jesus did (see John 21:25) and (2) the gospels do not necessarily record all the events of the narrative in strict chronological order.  Here, it's particularly relevant to compare Luke 4:1–5:11 with John 1:35–2:12.  Luke records several miracles taking place before the first disciples are called, while John puts the first miracle after Peter and others have joined him.

Despite these caveats, it still seems quite unlikely that the miracle of the wine or any other miracle took place before the temptation of Jesus.  Thus, while a dogmatic statement appears risky, concluding that Jesus performed no miracles before his temptation stands to reason.


Why are fathers missing in Mark 10:30? Mark 10:29 mentions father, but Mark 10:30 doesn't.

Mat 19:29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or
sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my
name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit
everlasting life.
Mar 10:29 And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is
no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or
mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's,
Mar 10:30 But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time,
houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and
lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.
Mat 23:9 And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your
Father, which is in heaven.

At the risk of sounding sexist, a young person would probably have been quite happy to have multiple mothers (they dote on you, they feed you), but to replace your father would be to replace your own identity.

Having a new father means you are totally different person, and to include the father would be to confuse the point that Jesus is trying to make - namely that every thing that gives you comfort which you forsake is nothing in comparison to what you will receive in heaven as a reward.

As Paul would say in Romans 8: 18

  I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us.


Just how accurate is the Bible? Some people say that the Bible is just a book, others say that its 100% accurate. The statistics might lie, so what I want to know is how the Bible compares to other books. Books like the encyclopedia, known historical writings and other books. The comparisons can definitely use statistics, but I definitely am looking for other books that the Bible does, or does not compare with.

edit: What I'm really curious about is if the premise: "The Bible is as accurate as an encyclopedia." is true, or if this premise could be true for any other history book.

If the Bible is 100% accurate, it is accurate in a different sense than we would apply to other books.

Studies of Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica found an average of one serious error per ten articles (each)--this number is not stated but can be calculated from numbers given here.  An article is usually a few hundred words (exactly how many depends on the edition), so that's a serious error every few thousand words.

Unfortunately, most of the events described in the Bible are hard to rigorously validate, unlike encyclopedias where most every statement can be validated.  Nonetheless, we can attempt to validate the Bible against itself by comparing a straightforward interpretation (as one would use with an encyclopedia) of different passages in the Bible.

The best opportunity to do this is with the Gospels since they all describe the same period of time.  Thus, we can use them for cross-validation (when interpreted plainly as a historical account).

Matthew 1:16 (ESV) explains:

  and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.

But Luke 3:23 (ESV) instead says:

  Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,

Joseph is presumably not the son of both Heli and Jacob, so at least by the standards used with encyclopedias*, this is an error.

According to Matthew 2:13-15 (ESV), Jesus spent some time in Egypt (immediately following a visit by the wise men):

  13Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, "Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you, for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him." 14And he rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed to Egypt 15and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, "Out of Egypt I called my son."

Luke, on the other hand, seems to indicate that Jesus never left (Luke 2:21-42 are all relevant, in but brief):

  21And at the end of eight days, when he was circumcised, he was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb. 22And when the time came for their purification according to the Law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord

So within about 5000 words, we have one assuredly contradictory account and one probable contradiction--no better than encyclopedias (and perhaps worse, since this is not an exhaustive survey, and many accounts cannot be confirmed).

Thus, claims that the Bible is 100% accurate, if correct, cannot mean that it's 100% accurate in the way you would expect an encyclopedia to be 100% accurate.

*There is a "Levirate marriage" explanation for the discrepancy, but we generally don't expect encyclopedias to require us to go to so much trouble to figure out what is being said.  Also, there's Ram vs. Arni and Admin in the Abraham to David line; Ruth agrees with Matthew, not Luke on this.


What is Deuteronomy 15 saying about the poor? Deuteronomy 15 is giving laws and rules relating to the treatment of the poor in communities. Verse 4 says:

  However, there will be no poor among you, since the Lord will surely bless you in the land which the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance to possess

But verse 11 says:

  For the poor will never cease to be in the land; therefore I command you, saying, ‘You shall freely open your hand to your brother, to your needy and poor in your land.’

What is the solution to the apparent contradiction here? Obviously we have poor with us today, so is verse 4 based upon a condition of obedience?

Verse 5 is a continuation of 4 which ends with a comma.

  , 5 if only you listen obediently to the voice of the Lord your God, to observe carefully all this commandment which I am commanding you today.

So it is saying if you were to do these things then you will have no poor. Verse 11 is pretty much saying that we either cannot or are will not do these things so we will always have the poor with us.


What happened to the wives of priests when celibacy was first instituted in the Catholic church? Since priests were not originally expected to be celibate, many must have been married when celibacy was first introduced. So what happened to the wives during this time when the institution started?

The women all died. That was about a thousand years ago, after all.

When the edict went out, the ruling was that married men would no longer be ordained, not that the priests who were married would get rid of their wives. Eventually, this meant that all of the women married to priests would either become widows or the priests would become widowers.

Below I was asked for a citation, so I'll go ahead and add this as an amendment. It was apparent that celibacy was highly preferred in the West by the time of the Quinisext Council, which mentions that the East does not have such a preference (a case of an exception proving that the rule exists). During the 11th century, Gregory VIII took dramatic and active efforts to eliminate all future married clergymen, and the Second Lateran Council forbid married clergymen completely. But by that time it had already been two generations since bishops were forbidden from ordaining married men anyway.


What specific good does Catholicism attribute to play and entertainment? In cases where a leisure, entertainment, play activity is questioned for its morality, the moral analysis tends to hinge on at least one evil aspect of the activity—one that either glorifies an evil (e.g., violence in video games) or is evil in and of itself (e.g., pornography or stealing lunch money from sissies).

However, if we agree that evil is an absence of good, and if we agree that leisure, games, and entertainment in general are not evil, we must be able to recognize some inherent good in those activities, or in the active participation thereof, for the activity to be not evil—and therefore good.

For the leisurely challenged, examples of "leisure and play" include things like:

Sporting events (either participating or watching)
Dancing
Video games
Board/Table-top games
Building unnecessary things out of:

Legos
Popsicle sticks
JavaScript

And other activities not done with a practical purpose in mind.

From a Catholic perspective, what is it about these types of activities that is explicitly and specifically good?

Furthermore, should we (and can we) as Catholics be able to attribute some specific good to each particular form of leisure, entertainment, or play? Or, are there an overarching "leisurely good" that applies to any and all activities that are not explicitly evil in some facet?

The Magisterium has not specifically addressed any of the O.P.'s specific question, but the Church would indeed affirm the fundamental goodness of play activities.
The need for play and rest is rooted in the natural law itself, and that idea is the basis of Sabbath rest, as expressed in the Third Commandment of the Decalogue:

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work [...] For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy (Ex. 20:8-11).

The parallel passage from Deuteronomy adds,

Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 14 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, [...] You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt (Deut. 5:13-15).

The Sabbath rest, which for Christians is transferred to the Day of the Resurrection (Sunday), is a fundamental right for all human beings. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church says,

2184. Just as God “rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done,” human life has a rhythm of work and rest. The institution of the Lord’s Day helps everyone enjoy adequate rest and leisure to cultivate their familial, cultural, social, and religious lives.
2185. On Sundays and other holy days of obligation, the faithful are to refrain from engaging in work or activities that hinder the worship owed to God, the joy proper to the Lord’s Day, the performance of the works of mercy, and the appropriate relaxation of mind and body....

Regarding the specific activities brought up by the O.P., it should be noted that evil is not just any absence of good; it is the deprivation of a due good. In the words of St. Thomas Aquinas:

Malum enim est defectus boni quod natum est et debet haberi.
For evil is a defect of the good that is fitting to a thing’s nature [literally “that is born” with that thing] and ought to be there (Summa theologiae, I. q. 49, a. 1., responsum).

It follows that, absent any evidence to the contrary, we must assume that a given activity (even a play or rest activity) must be good, at least in and of itself. Indeed, as the Biblical texts suggest, rest and play are necessary for man’s happiness.
Hence, in the case of the activities given by the O.P., all of them are good in and of themselves. There are some that pose particular risks (e.g., video games, either due to objectively offensive content, or because of the danger of immoderate use), but in general, the Church has no problem whatsoever with people taking part in them.
Such activities do not need a practical purpose: in fact, they are ends in themselves (as suggested by the priority of the Sabbath rest over work), and it would diminish their goodness if they were attached to practical ends—e.g., if we did them for money.


According to Jehovah's Witnesses, who are the 144,000 mentioned in the book of Revelation? The book of Revelation refers to 144,000 servants of God who will be sealed in two different places.  I have heard that the Jehovah's Witnesses often refer to this number.

Who, exactly, do the Jehovah's Witnesses believe these people to be?  Are they members of the Jehovah's Witnesses who lived in the past, who are living in the present, or who will live in the future?  Or are they male Jewish virgins, as the text suggests, who will live at some point in the future?   (male virgins - "who have not defiled themselves with women"; Jewish - "from every tribe of the sons of Israel")

  After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the
  earth, holding back the four winds of the earth, that no wind might
  blow on earth or sea or against any tree. Then I saw another angel
  ascending from the rising of the sun, with the seal of the living God,
  and he called with a loud voice to the four angels who had been given
  power to harm earth and sea, saying, “Do not harm the earth or the sea
  or the trees, until we have sealed the servants of our God on their
  foreheads.”

  And I heard the number of the sealed, 144,000, sealed from every tribe
  of the sons of Israel:   12,000 from the tribe of Judah were sealed,
  12,000 from the tribe of Reuben, 12,000 from the tribe of Gad, 12,000
  from the tribe of Asher, 12,000 from the tribe of Naphtali, 12,000
  from the tribe of Manasseh, 12,000 from the tribe of Simeon, 12,000
  from the tribe of Levi, 12,000 from the tribe of Issachar, 12,000 from
  the tribe of Zebulun, 12,000 from the tribe of Joseph, 12,000 from the
  tribe of Benjamin were sealed.  Revelation 7:1-8 ESV

  Then I looked, and behold, on Mount Zion stood the Lamb, and with him
  144,000 who had his name and his Father's name written on their foreheads. And I heard a voice from heaven like the roar of many
  waters and like the sound of loud thunder. The voice I heard was like
  the sound of harpists playing on their harps, and they were singing a
  new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and
  before the elders. No one could learn that song except the 144,000 who
  had been redeemed from the earth. It is these who have not defiled
  themselves with women, for they are virgins. It is these who follow
  the Lamb wherever he goes. These have been redeemed from mankind as
  firstfruits for God and the Lamb, and in their mouth no lie was found,
  for they are blameless.  Revelation 14:1-5 ESV

Witness doctrine:
God's original plan was for humans to live forever in paradise conditions on Earth.
But
Then Adam and Eve rebelled and threw a spanner in the works.
God's purpose (ultimate goal) didn't change, but his plan (the way to get there) did. Now there had to be all that complicated business with sending his son down to Earth to die as a redeemer and suchlike. Still the end result will be the same: humans living forever in paradise conditions on Earth. Some will live through the Great Tribulation at the end of this system, others will be resurrected from the sleep of death after that Tribulation. They will live on Earth and be ruled from Heaven.
The government in Heaven will have Jesus as its head, but there are 144,000 "co-heirs with Christ", the "Kingdom of priests and a holy nation" who will rule alongside him. These are the few, the minority of humans who go to heaven to be rulers. (Obviously the majority of humans stay on the Earth, or there would be no one for them to rule over.)
The "anointed class", those selected to go to heaven when they die, are not particularly special. In fact, in the first century, all Christians were in that class. They died, and were "asleep in death" (unconscious, dead, door-nail) till 1914, when they were resurrected to heaven. But the number of 144,000 is not quite made up. There's still a few left here on Earth. (It is expected that now the numbers are mostly made up, only particularly experienced Witnesses will be picked to make up the remainder.)
How do you know whether you're one of them? The spirit will move you. So as you read the Bible and read the descriptions in Revelation of a cleaned up paradise Earth, does that move you? Or when you read the descriptions of being "caught away in the air" into the heavenly city, does that move you? Generally speaking, any Witness who claims to be of the anointed class is accepted as being so. And it makes no difference to your status in the congregation. The only noticeable difference is that (a) when the bread and wine are passed at the annual Memorial, you will "participate" by eating and drinking some, and (b) if for some unavoidable reason you miss the Memorial, provision will be made for you to celebrate it a month later, in accordance with Jewish practise of the Passover; such provision is not made for non-anointed Witnesses.
In actual practise, most anointed Witnesses are (a) elderly long-serving members, or (b) recent converts from other branches of Christianity which talk a lot about Heaven. Draw your own conclusions.
Memorial participants are counted and reported in the annual statistics. Non-Witnesses who attend the Memorial and participate of the emblems are not counted. (The bread and wine are called emblems because the Witnesses believe they are symbols only.)
The status of being "anointed" is not thought of as a fixed thing. An anointed person can lose that status, and even be expelled from the congregation (disfellowshipped). This does not necessarily mean that they were lying and never had that status to begin with. (It may mean that, but not necessarily.)
Both brothers and sisters may be of the anointed class.