Which book of the law is Joshua 1:8 referring to? Since Joshua 1:8 says

  Do not let this Book  of the Law depart from your mouth; meditate on it day and night,

So which Book of the Law is Joshua 1:8 referring to, since we have 66 books in the Bible and three laws, namely The Law of Moses, Psalms, and the prophets

The traditional historic view of Joshua’s reference to the “book of the Law” is it refers to the Pentateuch that was written by Moses.  That is the first five books of our current Bible known as Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.  The Pentateuch is also known as the Torah.

In fact, the word “Torah” is in the text at, among other places, Joshua 1:8.

תּוֹרָה
towrah

The KJV translates Strong's H8451 in the following manner: law (219x).
-source-

There are some scholars most recently who believe that the Torah had four unique authors and was composed over hundreds of years.  Even if one takes this view, however, it would not diminish the understanding to what Joshua was referring.  For example, Joshua refers not just to the “book of the Law”, but also the “book of the Law of Moses” and the “book of the Law of God”.  That would still be the Pentateuch.

  As Moses the servant of the LORD commanded the children of Israel, as it is written in the book of the law of Moses,
  Joshua 8:31

Deuteronomy self describes the book of the law this way.

  Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.
  Deuteronomy 31:26

Throughout the Israelite history in Chronicles and Kings there are numerous references to the book of the law of Moses.  It was understood that Moses wrote the Pentateuch.

After the Dispersion when the Israelites regathered in the land under Nehemiah, the book of the law was still known as the first five books.

  and they spake unto Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses, which the LORD had commanded to Israel.
  Nehemiah 8:1b

By the time of Christ, the division of the Hebrew Bible was identified as three sections, Law or Teachings, Prophets, Psalms or Writings.  This is known as the Tanakh.

  And he [Jesus Christ] said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
  Luke 24:44

Some 2000 years ago it was common knowledge that the “book of the law” referred to the first five books of the Hebrew Bible.

  For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
  Gal. 3:10

The point in showing the understanding centuries after Moses and Joshua is that the traditional historic view confirms to what the book of the law Joshua would be referring.  It was the first five books of what is the Hebrew Bible.


Does the Catholic Church believe that we become just souls after we die? I am a Roman Catholic and I ask this question as one, but I'm also interested in understanding the answers that other christian denominations may have to my question. So, feel free to share here your conviction, even if you aren't Catholic. Here's the question!
Considering that:

The Catholic Church states that each one of us, human persons, are not just body or soul and that we also are not just a agglutination of both, but an unity that is formed by the mix of the two;

The Catholic Church also states that, after we die, our soul is separeted from the body;

Then:

What happens to us after we die? Do we live as just souls until the Final Judgment, when we will finaly get a new body?

If we cannot say that we, as human persons, are not just a soul or just body, as catholics, how could we say that, after death, we would still be human? I mean, if being human is to be an unity of body and soul, how could we still be humans once separated from our bodies?

I hope I was clear in my question. And if I comited a mistake in my exposition of catholic belief, please correct me.
Thanks!

Does the Catholic Church believe that we become just souls after we die?
The short answer is yes!
But the Catholic Church also teaches that when we die, our souls are separated from our earthly bodies. However our earthly bodies will be reunited with our souls at the general judgement.
This is why the Church technically refers to souls in Heaven as saints and not as persons. For the human person is technically composed as having a soul united with an earthly body! This will all change at the end of times!
Nevertheless, many refer to the saints in Heaven as saints. The souls in purgatory are interestingly enough referred to as the Souls in Purgatory!

Our Church teaches that immediately after death, our soul separates from our earthly body and we stand before God for judgement. We then enter heaven, Purgatory or hell.
Heaven is the ultimate end and fulfillment of the deepest human longings, the state of supreme, definitive happiness. Those who are free from all sin enter heaven immediately.
Purgatory is a place of purification, for those who die in a state of grace and friendship with God but who are not yet fully purified. Those in Purgatory are assured a place in heaven after their purification. We pray for those in Purgatory, that they may soon be with God in heaven.
Hell is for those who have willingly chosen to reject God and his love. If we persist in a state of serious sin, we damn ourselves to hell.
At the end of time, our Lord will come again to judge the living and the dead. All souls will be rejoined with their bodies, and those in Purgatory will be joined to the blessed in heaven. The Last Judgement will reveal that God’s justice triumphs over all the injustices committed by his creatures and that God’s love is stronger than death.  What Happens to Us After We Die?

The following article on The Human Person is quite informative:

The unity of soul and body
Man is not merely a body (that is materialism). Nor is he merely a soul (that is spiritualism). Nor is he two beings, like a ghost in a machine (that is dualism). He is one being in two dimensions, bodily and spiritual. “The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the ‘form’ of the body [‘form’ here meaning not ‘external shape’ but ‘intrinsic meaning’]:234 i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature” (CCC 365).
The human soul is not imprisoned in the body, as Plato taught, but expressed in it, as the meaning of a play is expressed in its words. And the body is not enslaved by the soul but fulfilled by it, as a beautiful piece of marble is fulfilled and brought to perfection in a great work of sculpture.
The human soul
The human soul is not a pure spirit, like an angel. It is the “form” of the body; it is meant to inform a body. The body is not a house and the soul is not a ghost. We are not haunted! The soul is not something strange, occult, or alien. Just the opposite. It is who we are; it is our personality. God gave it to us at conception (that magical moment that was also the beginning of our body), and we shape it through all of life’s choices.
The Church’s most important teachings about the soul are “1 that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God – it is not ‘produced’ by the parents – 2 and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and [3] it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection 235” (CCC 366).
On each of these three points there is good reason for our faith:

The soul must be created rather than evolved, because matter cannot make spirit any more than space can make time or color can make sound. They are two different dimensions. “You can’t get blood from a stone,” and you can’t get self-consciousness and free will from atoms and molecules.

The soul must be immortal because it is not made of atoms spread out in space and capable of being cut into parts. It is not composed, so it cannot be decomposed.

The soul must be reunited with a  new body because God made man as a soul-body unity, and God makes no mistakes. Therefore the resurrection of the body is needed to complete and perfect our human nature in Heaven. (Between death and resurrection, we are incomplete.) We do not become angels any more than we become ants.


Are there any archaeological evidences suggesting the existence of the Book of Mormon? The Old Testament has many archaeological findings which confirm its existence many years ago. A good example would be the discovery of Dead Sea Scrolls with some of the scrolls estimated to be created around 300 years before Christ.

The New Testament also has many archaeological proof of existence. One good example would be Codex Sinaiticus estimated to be created about 350 years after Christ.

I have no idea about the archaeological evidence for the existence of Book of Mormon at least some 1000 years ago. Is there any discovery till date which suggests the existence of the Book of Mormon before Joseph Smith? Did any ancient scholar mention it? Was it ever quoted by ancient writers? Such an important book about Jesus Christ should leave some traces of its existence in the past.

(Please note that this question is not asking for the evidence of events in the Book of Mormon)

To answer your question, I would challenge you to learn as much about the American continent as you can for the date that the Book of Mormon was compiled (~400AD). You will quickly discover that there are no other surviving records from that time period at all.1 In fact, the oldest manuscript written in the Americas known by historians–the Dresden Codex–was written half a millennia after Mormon compiled the Book of Mormon, and is one of only 15 ancient Mesoamerican records left in existence.

The Spanish conquest of Mesoamerica erased most of the history there. Temples were torn down and Cathedrals were built upon their foundations. The vast majority of what we know about those cultures was written by their conquerers.

If there were any codecies that supported the existence of the Book of Mormon, they would have likely been destroyed around the same time all of the Christians in Mormon's time were slaughtered, or during one of Bishop Diego de Landa's purges, and had the Gold Plates or any other plates made of gold been discovered, they would have been melted down into ingots, just like Atahualpa's ransom, and sent back to Spain.

So no, there are no evidences comparable to the Dead Sea Scrolls, or Codex Sinaiticus that serve as evidence of the Book of Mormon's existence. It is unknown exactly how the scriptures were even shared with the people other than by the kings and prophets preaching to them. Mormon states in his book–The Words of Mormon–that the plate records he used to compile the Book of Mormon, which are briefly explained here, were handed down by the kings until they were delivered to him, who then spent a large portion of his life compiling them into the book which he delivered to his son Moroni, who finished the book, buried it, and 1400 years later revealed to Joseph Smith in resurrected form.

1 List of Existing Codecies of Mesoamerican Literature.


Lies of the Desert Fathers Reading The Sayings of the Desert Fathers, I came across at least two accounts of the Fathers lying to or deceiving people

  10 . Once a provincial judge heard of Abba Moses and went  to Scete to see
  him. They told the old man that he was on his  way, and he rose up to
  flee into a marsh. The judge and his  train met him, and asked: "Tell
  me, old man, where is the cell  of Abba Moses?" And the old man said:
  "Why do you want to  see him? He is a fool and a heretic."
  The judge came to the church, and said to the clergy: "I  heard of
  Abba Moses and came to see him- But an old man on  his way to Egypt
  met me, and I asked him where was the cell  of Abba Moses. And he
  said: 'Why are you looking for him? He  is a fool and a heretic.* "
  And the clergy were distressed and  said: "What sort of person was
  your old man who told you this  about the holy man?" And they said:
  "He was an old man, tall  and dark, wearing the oldest possible
  clothes.'* And the clergy  said: "That was Abba Moses. And he told you
  this about him-  self because he did not want you to see him." And the
  judge  went away much edified.

  17 . A magistrate came to see Abba Simon one day. When he heard  of it, he
  put on his apron and went out to attend to a palm-tree.  When the
  visitors arrived they called out to him, 'Old man, where  is the
  anchorite?' He replied, 'There is no anchorite here.' Hearing  these
  words, they went away again.

Source: THE SAYINGS OF THE FATHERS, PART VIII in "The Library Of Christian Classics Volume XII. Western Asceticism" by Owen Chadwick, 1958

Having read many other anecdotes about the Desert Fathers and knowing how much they valued eremitic lifestyle and detachment from the world I take the behavior of these two abbas as an attempt to avoid being bothered by unexpected and random visitors lest they disturb their seclusion and peace of mind.

Abba Moses (the protagonist of the first anecdote above) is recorded as saying

  10 . "A man who avoids men is like a ripe grape. A man who companies with men is like a sour grape"

Source: ibid, Part II

Various sources, for example gotquestions.org, assert that lying is regarded as a sinful act.

So I would guess that by being deliberately untruthful these Fathers not only acted presumably unethically and sinfully, they also acted against the ethos of Jesus's teachings expressed in such saying as

  If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to
  the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to
  borrow from you.

Mt 5:41-42

In the quoted stories the visitors were going to ask for advice and borrow some wisdom, which they were denied under false pretenses, although in the first case the visitor is said to have still derived benefit from witnessing the abba's humbleness, which nevertheless could have been a byproduct and not the original intent.

My question thus is whether and how these Fathers' deceptive behavior could be justified from the Christian doctrine point of view, either Catholic or Greek Orthodox denomination?

Obviously the purpose of these anecdotes was and is to serve as
examples of good Christian ascetic conduct and so recording these two
particular ones their authors must've not viewed the conduct of the
abbas as either deceitful or as a morally reproachable deceit (if
deceit can be morally neutral or even positive) possibly knowing a good excuse for it.

Truth is in the 'eye of the beholder'.

What the other people thought about Abba Moses may not necessarily have portrayed him correctly. An alternative explanation is that Abba Moses had low thoughts about himself, according to the old saying:

  Mat 23:12 (NIV) "For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted".

The judge seems to have been taking it that way, anyway, which is reflected in the words of the storyteller: "the judge went away much edified".


Why is Christianity considered a monotheistic religion? One of the commandments states "place no other gods before me". Does this mean God is implying the existence of other gods, or why is this explicitly stated?

The Biblical universe also includes a varied cast of supernatural characters like Lucifer, Metatron, Archangels, Demons, Seraphim, etc. Some of these manifest with power in the world and represent the roles of messengers, warriors, healers, advisers, protectors, troublemakers, and so on.

Why are these not acknowledged as "gods" or "lesser gods" like in the pantheons of other religions: how is the nature of their existence different?

On what basis is Christianity classified as monotheistic given the existence of other powerful beings in the Bible?

Christianity is monotheistic as its adherents believe in only one God.

The first commandment speaks about the gods of other religions. Although Christians believe in only God, they do acknowledge that other gods are believed in by non-Christians.

In other words, there are many gods in which to believe, but you believe in only one if you are Christian.

Also, the same passage applies to Muslims and Jews.

To answer the third part of your question: the belief in the Christian God (i.e. the Trinity) is what defines Christians.

Belief (or lack thereof) in the supernatural attributes of Satan, the Saints, Virgin Mary, angels vary by interpretation, but in general these figures are considered non-divine, and certainly subsidiary to God.


How does the Jehovah's Witness denomination deal with the filial piety among its East Asian believers? The Jehovah's Witness denomination has been preached in more than 300 different languages, apparently using the English text as the base instead of directly from the original biblical languages. Surely, there must be some East Asian believers.

The reason why I raise this concern is that "filial piety" is the dominant cultural value of East Asia and overseas East Asians. In regards to Christianity, there was the Chinese Rites Controversy, which was resolved by Pope Pius XII, in which he declared that traditional Chinese Confucian practices were tolerated, as they did not conflict with Catholicism, and these practices were embedded within the culture. Among South Korean Catholics, they practice jesa, but the Roman Catholic Church has no problem with it either, seeing it as a part of the culture that does not conflict with (Catholic) Christianity.

Also, I searched "filial piety" on the Watchtower Online Library, and only two articles discussed it, and the two articles seemed to use filial piety only when it served the interest of the church.

  Cultivating Faith in the Creator

  As an old Chinese saying puts it, Among a hundred virtues, filial
  piety is the foremost. Surely it is proper that children know their
  father and honor their parents. (Ephesians 6:1-3; Colossians 3:20)

  Can the Dead influence the Living?

  CAN THE DEAD INFLUENCE THE LIVING?
  MANY people have a morbid fear of the dead. Some believe that spirits
  of the dead can either protect them as their guardians or harm them as
  vengeful ghosts. Many Chinese worship their ancestors as a way of
  showing filial piety (devotion to parents) and of ensuring blessings
  for future generations. Though such beliefs are common, the Bible
  clearly shows that the dead cannot in any way influence the living.

  Source: http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/s/r1/lp-e?q=filial+piety&p=par

The author(s) of the two articles fail(s) to recognize that filial piety can actually manifest itself in both, which may hint that the denomination merely uses it to serve its own interests. In addition, as a sub-question, how does the Jehovah's Witness denomination deal with the filial piety among its East Asian believers (and those in the diaspora) in cases of disfellowship and shunning? Given that the JW denomination has a hierarchical church polity, has there been an official church pronouncement about this cultural value that may or may not conflict with this church denomination? So, does the Jehovah's Witness Watchtower have anything to say about the likely conflict between its own tradition and traditional Chinese beliefs and practices?

Jehovah’s Witness policy is generally followed in a consistent manner regardless of the land in which a worshiper lives. Especially when it comes to the application of foundational precepts such as disfellowshipping there would be no cultural allowance granted to set aside the consequences of that ruling. From the perspective of Jehovah’s Witnesses, God’s law generally trumps national borders as well as traditional and cultural norms.
Having said that, let’s get to the overall question of what is the JW policy for association with disfellowshipped family members and then focus on the specifics of how that relates to parents. The most recent information regarding family member and disfellowshipping can be found in the August 2002 issue of the Kingdom Ministry, a monthly newsletter originating from the world headquarters in Brooklyn and used extensively in our weekly meetings for worship.
This issue, quoting from articles in previously published Watchtower magazines, makes several clear statements on the matter. First related to an individual living within the home: “The Watchtower of April 15, 1991, in the footnote on page 22, states: “If in a Christian’s household there is a disfellowshipped relative, that one would still be part of the normal, day-to-day household dealings and activities.” Thus, it would be left up to members of the family to decide on the extent to which the disfellowshipped family member would be included when eating or engaging in other household activities.”
In a situation like the one above the only area where association would be limited is in matters involving family worship. Whereas usually JW families are encouraged to worship together, a disfellowshipped individual could attend but would not be invited to lead those discussions or bring in information contrary to what is being discussed.
In the case of a relative outside the household the article says this: “The situation is different if the disfellowshipped or disassociated one is a relative living outside the immediate family circle and home,” states The Watchtower of April 15, 1988, page 28. “It might be possible to have almost no contact at all with the relative. Even if there were some family matters requiring contact, this certainly would be kept to a minimum,” in harmony with the divine injunction to “quit mixing in company with anyone” who is guilty of sinning unrepentantly. Loyal Christians should strive to avoid needless association with such a relative, even keeping business dealings to an absolute minimum.”
So to the original question related to treatment of parents, in the case of healthy, independent parents, except where non-religious family matters are involved, there would be minimal contact. An exception though is made in the event of ailing parents or those facing other major difficulties. This exception is based on 1 Timothy 5:8: “Certainly if anyone does not provide for those who are his own, and especially for those who are members of his household, he has disowned the faith and is worse than a person without faith.”
That same article goes on to say: “For example, a disfellowshiped parent may be sick or no longer able to care for himself financially or physically. The Christian children have a Scriptural and moral obligation to assist. (1 Tim. 5:8) . . . What is done may depend on factors such as the parent’s true needs, his attitude and the regard the head of the household has for the spiritual welfare of the household.”—The Watchtower of September 15, 1981, pages 28-9.


Blood of the New Covenant offered to whom? In Luke 22:20 Jesus says that the blood of the new covenant is poured out for "you". Is the word "you" only referring to the apostles only? Or is it meant to represent all of humanity.

The 11th century Byzantine commentator, Theophylact of Ohrid, who wrote a comprehensive commentary on the Gospels compiled from the writings of earlier Church Fathers, wrote:

  When the Lord says, which is given for you and which is shed for
  you, He does not mean that His Body was given and His Blood was shed
  only for the Apostles, but for human nature itself.  Therefore,
  whenever He says, Given for you, understand it to mean, "Given for
  the human nature which belongs to you all." (An Explanation of the
  Gospel According to St. Luke)

I think that one could say that this interpretation is also reflected in Matthew's and Mark's accounts, where they recall Jesus saying which is shed for many:

  Matthew 26:28

    For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for
    many for the remission of sins

  Mark 14:24

    And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which
    is shed for many


Does any version of the Anglican church associate 'confirmation' with the Baptism of the Holy Ghost? I know the question may seem weird, but I was reading an old history book the other day and the author seemed to be an old high Church Anglican that put a lot of weight on ceremony and I was very surprised to see that he equated 'confirmation' with the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.  What I am wondering is if this was just an old idea entertained by some, or is actually a popular understanding by any modern Anglicans?

Here is the sort of thing this guys was saying (funny I think he was the brother of the famous writer William Wordsworth);

  "Certain it is that the ancient Fathers speak of Confirmation as ministered by Bishops—as successors of the Apostles—for the bestowal of the gift of the Holy Ghost on the baptized." (CHURCH HISTORY to the COUNCIL OF NICÆA
  A.D. 325 by CHR. WORDSWORTH, D.D.p67)

It is part of the Anglican service of confirmation that the Bishop lays hands on the candidate and says "receive the Holy Spirit". This has been true for a long time and is still true today. So no, this is not an outdated or unusual idea at all, and is widely believed by modern Anglicans.

Different denominations do mean different things by "Baptism of the Spirit", and it's not intended to mean that the Holy Spirit was absent from the candidates life before.


How do we recognize Elijah when he will come before the day of Lord? As predicted by Jesus

Matthew 17:11: He answered, "Elijah does come, and he will restore all things."

and

Malachi 4:5: See, I will send the prophet Elijah to you before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes.

Now, as for Jesus's coming we will know him for sure, but how do we recognize Elijah when he will come?
I think he is not one of the two witnesses of Rev 11, because in that time the tribulation should be already in place.

How do we recognize Elijah when he will come before the day of Lord?
In the Book of Revelation we read about two witnesses who will be God’s prophets that will prepare the world for Christ’s second coming.

The Two Witnesses
11 I was given a reed like a measuring rod and was told, “Go and measure the temple of God and the altar, with its worshipers. 2 But exclude the outer court; do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on the holy city for 42 months. 3 And I will appoint my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1,260 days, clothed in sackcloth.” 4 They are “the two olive trees” and the two lampstands, and “they stand before the Lord of the earth.” 5 If anyone tries to harm them, fire comes from their mouths and devours their enemies. This is how anyone who wants to harm them must die. 6 They have power to shut up the heavens so that it will not rain during the time they are prophesying; and they have power to turn the waters into blood and to strike the earth with every kind of plague as often as they want.
7 Now when they have finished their testimony, the beast that comes up from the Abyss will attack them, and overpower and kill them. 8 Their bodies will lie in the public square of the great city—which is figuratively called Sodom and Egypt—where also their Lord was crucified. 9 For three and a half days some from every people, tribe, language and nation will gaze on their bodies and refuse them burial. 10 The inhabitants of the earth will gloat over them and will celebrate by sending each other gifts, because these two prophets had tormented those who live on the earth.
11 But after the three and a half days the breath[b] of life from God entered them, and they stood on their feet, and terror struck those who saw them. 12 Then they heard a loud voice from heaven saying to them, “Come up here.” And they went up to heaven in a cloud, while their enemies looked on.
13 At that very hour there was a severe earthquake and a tenth of the city collapsed. Seven thousand people were killed in the earthquake, and the survivors were terrified and gave glory to the God of heaven. - Revelation 11:1-13

Who are these two witnesses. Most Christians think it will be Elijah and Enoch. Some think it may be Elijah and Moses.

In the Book of Revelation, the two witnesses are two of God's prophets who are seen by John of Patmos, during the "Second woe" recorded in Revelation 11:1-14. They have been variously identified by theologians as two people, as two groups of people, or as two concepts. Dispensationalist Christians believe that the events described in the Book of Revelation will occur before and during the Second Coming. The two witnesses are never identified in the Christian Bible. Some believe they are Enoch and Elijah, as in the Gospel of Nicodemus, since they are the only two that did not see death as required by the Scriptures. Others believe them to be Moses and Elijah because they appeared during the transfiguration of Jesus, or because Enoch was not Abraham's descendant. Some also believe that they are Moses and Elijah due to the description of what they are to do. They have the power to shut the heavens (Elijah) and turn water into blood (Moses) - Two witnesses

In any case, if Elijah and Enoch do show up there is no sure way that we will be able to recognize him at. The Scriptures simply tells us what to look for, but not the absolute certainty that they are going to be clearly identified by believers at all.
Look at the uncertainty that surrounded the ministry of Jesus himself:

Peter's Confession of Christ
13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, He questioned His disciples: “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” 14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets. 15“But what about you?” Jesus asked. “Who do you say I am?”… - Matthew 16:13-15

There will certainly some who will be able to recognize the Two Witness, but how and when will have to be determined as the future events partaking of the Second Coming of Christ unfold!
For myself, it is not an impossibility that Elijah will preach to the Jews and Enoch to those who are neither Christian or Jewish. For Christians, we have our Church leaders to help us prepare for the Great Day of Christ’s Return.
Nothing is written in stone!
Theodoret wrote that Elijah would do just that:

"Paul insists that only a part of Israel has been hardened, for many of them believe.  He thus encourages them not to despair that others will be saved as well.  After the Gentiles accepted the gospel, the Jews would believe, when the great Elijah would come to them and bring them the doctrine of the faith.  The Lord himself said as much: 'Elijah will come and will restore all things.'"


What is truly meant when it is said that Holy Scripture is 'inerrant' according to the Catholic Church? Granted that further research has been made in collecting a greater amount of old manuscripts of Scripture, certain realizations have been made about the bible that we currently use; there are some excerpts and passages that are not in older manuscripts, but rather are later add-ons (the two major examples being Mark 16 and John 5:7-8). The validity of these verses and the reliability of the Gospels is not to be discussed here. What is to be discussed is the Church's statement that the canonized Scripture used today is inerrant. What is truly meant by this word, and how is it reconciled with what scholars have shown us regarding these later additions to original manuscripts? Are there any specific thoughts from Catholic thinkers regarding this matter?

It should also be noted that I make it sound as though there are thousands of such meaningful and stunning additions to Scripture throughout the years, but such could not be further from the truth. The two major examples I listed are among the few meaningful additions that appear to have been intentionally added, but the additions themselves do not in themselves deter any accepted doctrine of the Church.

According to the Catholic Catechism,

we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.

This statement is purposely ambiguous, as there is debate among Catholic theologians about what inerrancy entails.  By saying the text is inerrant on matters God desired to communicate for our salvation, it opens up the possibility that the text contains incidental details that are not inerrant.  However, the ambiguity also allows that it is possible all details are also correct.  It just depends on what God chose to do, which humans can't know for sure.

Catholics United is a good example of a more strict interpretation within the Catholic Church:

Some have taught that the Scripture’s inerrancy is restricted only to “religious matters,” arguing that the Bible is without error only when it deals with matters of faith and morals. However, when it comes to non-religious matters of history or “background details,” these critics argue that God may have permitted human errors to exist alongside more important religious truths.
But this position has been refuted repeatedly by the Church because it necessarily limits God’s inspiration of the sacred texts.
...
When it comes to matters of natural science, the Church teaches that the sacred authors did not necessarily intend to teach physics, astronomy, or chemistry. For example, when the Scriptures describe the sun as moving around the earth (cf. Ps. 19: 4-6; Eccles. 1:5), the sacred writer was not intending to give astronomy lessons. A literalistic approach would have to deny the modern scientific data showing that the earth revolves around the sun.
However, the writers were intending to report what appeared to their senses, and did so accurately.

While David Bennett offers a good defense of a less strict interpretation:

The early Fathers held that the Bible was inerrant... However, this is the case only when the Bible is properly understood, interpreted by the Church. This is inerrancy by ancient standards and not modern, fundamentalist standards. The early Fathers did not think that minor contradictions rendered the Bible errant, nor did they insist all stories were meant to be interpreted literally. For instance, the creation stories were often allegorized, interpreted in ways so as to prefigure Christ, or interpreted through the lens of the science of the day (or all three!). Thus St. Augustine could say each day in the Genesis creation story was equal to a thousand years, or that the science of the day should shape our understanding of the creation stories, without ever denying the divine inspiration of the Scriptures.
...
Thus the view of the early Church is that the Bible is an accurate, God-inspired testimony, the written document accurately reporting the foundations of the faith, but not necessarily inerrant as defined by modern criteria, and the Old Testament is certainly not inerrant when exclusively interpreted literally.
...
In conclusion, Catholics believe that the Bible is God-inspired, inerrant when interpreted correctly by the Church (and this is fluid to a degree, as science and other observations help us with this task), but not necessarily inerrant by the Protestant definition.


Why do most Christians seemingly not mind swearing on the Bible in light of Matthew 5:33-37? Although the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution declares:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Christian Bibles are sometimes used in Courts to swear an oath.
In contrast to the tradition of swearing by the Bible, we are told in Matthew 5:33-37:

[33] “Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ [34] But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; [35] or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. [36] And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. [37] All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one."

If Matthew 5:33-37 is literal, why would Christians swear an oath on the Bible?

According to this source

The tradition of using the Bible in oath-taking likely comes from ninth-century England, where, without dedicated governmental centers, the altar of a church often served as the courtroom for oaths and contracts. Gospels began to be used in the contractual ceremonies, and, eventually, the tradition migrated into English courtrooms before crossing the Atlantic into American legal ceremonies. Though oaths are indeed religious in origin, the Constitution makes clear that the oath can be replaced with an "Affirmation," which substitutes the religious language (the "I swear" and "So help me God") with a secular affirmation (for example: "I affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth").


Evidence that Peter alone was made a Bishop by Christ? This got my attention. Although I don't currently agree with it, it's an intriguing question which I am open to accept if sufficient evidence is found. Now when I read classical works on the Papacy (or general catholic works on Ecclesiology), I'm starting to see sort of how St. Robert Bellarmine came to that conclusion. Some of the "evidence" I've found so far are Saurez's Defensio Fidei Catholicae (taken as a whole) and Sermons by St's. Gregory the Great and Leo the Great.

For example,

  "When the Passion of the Lord was drawing near, an event
  that was going to shake the constancy of his disciples, he said:
  'Simon, Simon. Behold, Satan has obtained his request to sift
  you (all) like wheat. I, however, have begged for you that your
  faith not fail. Once you have converted, strengthen your brethren,
  lest you (all) enter into temptation.' Each apostle encountered
  the same danger through temptation from fear. All
  equally needed the help of divine protection, since the devil
  wanted to harass them all and to crush them all. Still, the Lord
  took special care of Peter and prayed especially for Peter. It
  was as if the condition of the others would be more secure if
  the mind of their leader were not overcome.
  In Peter, therefore, the fortitude of all is reinforced, for the
  aid of divine grace is ordered in such a way that the firmness
  given to Peter through Christ is conferred upon the apostles
  through Peter."" (Tractatus IV, Pars 3, Sancti Leonis Magni).

Now, I'm not arguing that that quote alone proves the thesis but combined with other arguments in context may give some weight. Does anyone have any evidence for St. Robert Bellarmine's claim? Any arguments against it?

St. Robert's opinion that St. Peter consecrated the other Apostles bishops doesn't seem common. For example, D. I. Lanslots, O.S.B., says in his The Primitive Church: The Church in the Days of the Apostles ch. 15:

  Christ directly consecrated His Apostles bishops; they and their successors were to consecrate all others.

The "Apostolic College" Catholic Encyclopedia entry distinguishes "Apostle" and "bishop":

  Although both, bishops and Apostles, are appointed by Divine authority, yet the Apostles received their commission immediately from Christ, whereas the bishops receive theirs but mediately, i.e. through the medium of human authority. The power of order and jurisdiction is the same in the Apostles and in their successors, but, whereas the Apostles receive it from the Divine Founder Himself, the bishops receive it through the channel of other bishops. Immediate commission implies, in the missionary, the power to produce, at first hand, credentials to prove that he is the envoy of God by doing works which God alone can work. Hence the charisma, or gift, of miracles granted to the Apostles, but withheld from the generality of their successors whose mission is sufficiently accredited through their connection with the original Apostolate.


Did the pope choose sides between the Allies and the Axis in World War 2? Simple question. I was just wondering how the Catholic church positioned itself politically at the time of world war 2. Did it align with the Allies, Axis, or neither? Did the pope choose sides between the Allies and the Axis, if so which side?

When asked this question, I do like to point to one little-examined incident in 1942. In July of 1942 the Dutch bishops actually did send a letter to the Nazi government protesting, specifically, the Nazi treatment of the Jews.

  Ours is a time of great tribulations of which two are foremost: the sad destiny of the Jews and the plight of those deported for forced labor. … All of us must be aware of the terrible sufferings which both of them have to undergo, due to no guilt of their own. We have learned with deep pain of the new dispositions which impose upon innocent Jewish men, women and children the deportation into foreign lands. … The incredible suffering which these measures cause to more than 10,000 people is in absolute opposition to the divine precepts of justice and charity. … Let us pray to God and for the intercession of Mary … that he may lend his strength to the people of Israel, so severely tried in anguish and persecution

Now, as a respectful, thoughtful group of individuals, what do you think the Nazis did? Did they stop sending Jews to the gas chamber? ... I don't think so. In fact, this letter corresponds to a dramatic increase in the rate of detainment and deportation of Dutch Jews including one, now canonized, Edith Stein.

Now, admittedly, this was in 1942, so it clearly does not excuse silence from before that time, right? I'll agree wholeheartedly, except that I'll point out that Pius XII wasn't silent. Quoth the Third Reich's Chief Security Service:

  Pacelli has already made himself prominent by his attacks on National Socialism during his tenure as Cardinal Secretary of State, a fact which earned him the hearty approval of the Democratic States during the papal elections. . . . How much Pacelli is celebrated as an ally of the Democracies is especially emphasized in the French Press.

(And I think it also worth noting that Pacelli was consecrated Pius XII in March of 1939, ten years after the Vatican was subjected to Mussolini's government, and five months before Hitler invaded Poland.)

But let us look to those who have been persecuted, and see whether they felt that Pius XII supported Hitler. Quoth the chief rabbi of Jerusalem:

  The people of Israel will never forget what His Holiness and his illustrious delegates, inspired by the eternal principles of religion which form the very foundations of true civilization, are doing for us unfortunate brothers and sisters in the most tragic hour of our history, which is living proof of divine Providence in this world.

And then there are the numbers:

  instrumental in saving at least 700,000 but probably as many as 860,000 Jews from certain death at Nazi hands

(Just in case anyone is counting, Schindler is at ~1,200. Pius at > 700,000. Pius > Schindler)

So, what do I see? Pius XII preached against Hitler, but he realizes that his flock will be put to the wolves if he preaches too readily. So, instead, he works behind the scenes to keep safe as many as he can.


Did Jesus know from the outset that He was the Son of God or did Mary tell Him? A Catholic friend of mine asked me this question, and I mentioned this passage:

41 Every year Jesus’ parents went to Jerusalem for the Passover festival. 42 When Jesus was twelve years old, they attended the festival as usual. 43 After the celebration was over, they started home to Nazareth, but Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. His parents didn’t miss him at first, 44 because they assumed he was among the other travelers. But when he didn’t show up that evening, they started looking for him among their relatives and friends.
45 When they couldn’t find him, they went back to Jerusalem to search for him there. 46 Three days later they finally discovered him in the Temple, sitting among the religious teachers, listening to them and asking questions. 47 All who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers.
48 His parents didn’t know what to think. “Son,” his mother said to him, “why have you done this to us? Your father and I have been frantic, searching for you everywhere.”
49 “But why did you need to search?” he asked. “Didn’t you know that I must be in my Father’s house?” 50 But they didn’t understand what he meant.
51 Then he returned to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them. And his mother stored all these things in her heart.
52 Jesus grew in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and all the people.
~Luke 2:41–52 (NLT)

So, Jesus certainly knew His identity by 12 years old. However, being God, He could've known this as a baby, and I've heard this opinion expressed by various people. However, I'm wondering: is there a Catholic tradition that answers the question in the title? Do Catholics say Jesus grew up knowing He was the Son of God, or do they say Mary told Him?

Number 79 in the the YouCat asks if Jesus has a soul, a mind and a body just as we do.  I don't think you're going to find a Catholic answer that speculates on what Mary may or may not have said to Him outside of scripture, although there are early extra-biblical accounts of Jesus' miracles during His hidden life.  Some are spontaneous and some are at Mary's prompting, but you don't have to believe them and most Catholics don't even know of them, which is probably a good thing.

So, back to the YouCat, it says Jesus "had a soul and developed psychologically and spiritually."  So, in part, what He knew seems to be constrained to His human faculties.  But, the Doctrine of the Hypo-static union says that His soul is Human and Divine.  So... "In this soul swelled the human identity and his special self-consciousness."

Furthermore, "Jesus new about his unity with his heavenly Father in the Holy Spirit, by whom he allowed himself to be guided in every situation of his life"

So, I think the answer is that Mary didn't need to tell Him, although there's no reason to suppose that she did and one reason to suppose that she didn't (Our Lady had a tendency to hold things and ponder them in her heart).


How should Reformed people deal with Wrong doctrine? Question for Calvinists/Reformed people!

There are some teachers in my Evangelical church who teach Salvation by works to the  children in the church. Their Justification for this is make the children behave well. I have judged this as dishonouring to GOD and his Word - and have confronted them on several occasions on their doctrine.

Because I have done this several times, fellow church members have accused me of dividing the Church, disturbing the peace and being intolerant.

I am working with the challenge of both When to speak up and how to speak up.

When?

When should I correct faulty doctrine?
When should I refrain?
Does the Bible have a 'formula' for correcting doctrine (like Matt
18:15-17)?

How?

If you have ever confronted somebody on their doctrine, could you
please recount how you did it?

The typical Reformed perspective on this is that the teachers of the church should not be teaching doctrine which disagrees with the confessional position of the church (which in continental Reformed churches is typically the Apostles' Creed, Nicene Creed, Athanasian Creed, and the Three Forms of Unity; in Presbyterian churches, it is typically the same creeds and the Westminster Confession of Faith as far as I know).

If an official church teacher is teaching doctrine contrary to the confessions the church upholds, then it is definitely your right (and duty!) bring the matter to the Consistory of your church (e.g. the minister/s and elders). Most Reformed churches have an article in their church order regarding this (in the case of continental Reformed churches, usually based on the old Netherlands Reformed Church Order:

  Article 75

  The reconciliation of all such sins as are of their nature of a public
  character, or have become public because the admonition of the Church
  was despised, shall take place, when definite signs of repentance are
  evident, publicly, by the judgment of the Consistory; and in rural
  districts or smaller towns having only one Minister, with the advice
  of two neighbouring Churches, in such a form and manner as shall be
  judged to be conducive to the edification of each Church.

  Article 76

  Such as obstinately reject the admonition of the Consistory, and
  likewise those who have committed a public or otherwise gross sin,
  shall be suspended from the Lord's Supper. And if he, having been
  suspended after repeated admonitions, shows no signs of repentance,
  the Consistory shall at last proceed to the extreme remedy, namely,
  excommunication, agreeably to the Form adopted for that purpose
  according to the Word of God. But no one shall be excommunicated
  except with previous advice of Classis.

And also later in Article 79, elders or ministers who preach false doctrine or heresy (which in the example you gave, would be the case) should be suspended and/or deposed, as well as disciplined as per the quoted articles.

The reason the complete Matthew 18 process is partially skipped is because publicly teaching confessionally false doctrine is a public sin, and as such should be publicly admonished, skipping private admonition.

If someone is not publicly teaching false doctrine, but does subscribe to it, and it is a confessional doctrine, then you should follow the Matthew 18 process to admonish them and restore them to the faith. This is also described in the linked church order.

Regarding when to NOT try to correct false doctrine, if the matter is not confessional then you don't typically need to follow the Matthew 18 process. This is because any non-confessional matter is not considered necessary for salvation (and typically there is debate on the matter, among orthodox scholars). For example, falsely taught soteriology is a confessional doctrine and thus MUST be confronted. But having a disagreement with someone about whether or not the burning bush was the first or the second person of the Trinity is non-confessional, and as such not something that should be disciplined by anyone but God.

The Presbyterian position may differ somewhat, and I would be interested in seeing an answer from that perspective.


From an Evangelical perspective, why didn't the resurrected Jesus appear to those who doubted that He was the promised Messiah? In Matthew 27:42, we read:

  "He saved others," said the chief priests and elders , "but he can't save himself! He's the king of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him."

Had the resurrected Jesus appeared to the same chief priests who wanted to see him come off the cross and prove his messiahship , and sent the New Covenant through that route, no Jew would be skeptical of His resurrection (Matthew 28:15). Thus, every Jew would have believed in Jesus!

In light of the above insight, from an Evangelical perspective, why didn't the resurrected Jesus appear to those who doubted that He was the promised Messiah?

Resurrected "Jesus"

Jesus said this about his enemies

I know that you do not have the love of God in your hearts.
I have come in my Father's name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him.
John 5:42-43

In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again. "
John 3:3

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.
John 6:44

Put simply unless God makes people born again they cannot recognise Him as He is.  So it is not a question of proof but spiritual rebirth.  If Jesus had appeared to the pharisees they would have just believed he was a ghost or a con man and tried to kill him.

When Peter a few months after Jesus rose again said plainly who Jesus was
"It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed."
Acts 4:10

Their response was
"What are we going to do with these men?" they asked. "Everybody living in Jerusalem knows they have done an outstanding miracle, and we cannot deny it.
But to stop this thing from spreading any further among the people, we must warn these men to speak no longer to anyone in this name."
Acts 4:16-17

The question was not, wow, Jesus was the Son of God, but the people will believe these peoples message because of this miracle that looks outstanding, so we cannot stand against it, though we disagree with it completely.

If Jesus had stood before them it would have been no different.
When stephen said something similar a year later they responded like this

At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, dragged him out of the city and began to stone him.
Acts 7:57-58

They knew Jesus, they knew they had killed an innocent man, who said He would rise again, and His followers, timid empty people, now appeared with boldness and great skill before them declaring His resurrection and performing miracles by Jesus's power, yet they hated them.

Either they accepted the truth or they had to fight for survival, because only force would stop this movement.  They chose to fight and rebel against God.

http://cerebralfaith.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/why-didnt-jesus-appear-to-pilate-and.html

http://evidenceforchristianity.org/when-jesus-resurrection-happened-why-did-he-appear-to-his-apostles-first-why-did-he-not-appear-to-the-pharisees-teachers-of-the-law-r/

http://www.apologeticsinthechurch.com/objections-to-the-resurrection/why-didnt-jesus-appear-to-the-whole-world

above are three articles that are providing their perspective on this subject.


Are there published testimonies from ex cessationists who became continuationists after personally witnessing or experiencing a sign gift? Has ever a cessationist Christian become a continuationist for first-hand experiential reasons? Are there published testimonies from ex cessationists who became continuationists after they had a first-hand experience with a sign gift or witnessed someone else exercising a sign gift?
If possible, I'd be especially interested in reading testimonies published by reputable former cessationists, say, a renowned cessationist Baptist pastor who had an experience that turned him into a continuationist, etc.

The counterpart question to this one can be found here.

Jack Deere has at least two books which relate to your question.  He was a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, which is a cessationist seminary.
Some of his books which deal with the question are Why I am Still Surprised by the Power of the Spirit:Discovering How God Speaks and Heals Today and Surprised by the Voice of God:How God Speaks Today Through Prophecies, Dreams and Visions.  He wrote multiple other books on related topics.
He includes Biblical support and his own experience of conversion to speaking in tongues.
He includes personal experiences of reasons for his conversion to continuationist.  One example from the first edition is ongoing challenges with a specific student.  God prompts Jack to ask about pornography.  Normally, in that seminary, at the time this would be considered an extremely inappropriate question, even risking censure from the seminary.  However, the student confesses looking at pornography and that this was contributing to academic problems.  This was the beginning of the student getting free of sin with pornography.
https://wellspringdfw.libsyn.com/speaking-in-tongues-part-2-jack-deere  His sermon here speaks to the topic in general.
Also, Dennis Bennett, an Episcopal priest describes his journey from cessationist to continuationist in his book, Nine O'Clock in the Morning.  Although it was written in the 1970's, he describes many experiences of congregants converting from cessationist to speaking in tongues.  Many of them based their decisions or desire on seeing the joy, freedom or healing in friends who spoke in tongues.  He mentions other evidences which meet the biblical criteria, "You will know them by their fruits" from  https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207%3A15-20&version=NKJV
https://www.amazon.com/Nine-OClock-Morning-Episcopal-Discovers-ebook/dp/B08HKGFNSH
Bennett's book focuses more on the topic of baptism in the spirit, but clearly addresses the cessationist question.
Both of these books were instrumental in my personal conversion from from cessationist to speaking in tongues.


While on the cross, was Jesus abandoned by every human? There are numerous Christians hymns and references in Christian literature that Jesus was "forsaken by all mankind, yet to be in Heaven' enthroned", etc.
In essence, there is this powerful image of Christ hanging crucified on the cross bearing the sins of all mankind, totally abandoned. (cf. Mark 15:34)
The Gospels, however, at least the Gospel of John, presents the apostle John and Mary the mother of Jesus present at the crucifixion (cf. John 19:26–27), showing somehow that not every human betrayed or forsaken Christ.
Are the Christian hymns a simple exaggeration to make a point, or was Jesus indeed literary forsaken by all humans? If so, how are we to interpret the passages cited in John's Gospel?

He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God - John 1:10-12

The hymn writers are employing literary devices intended, not to exaggerate Christ's suffering (for we cannot even truly imagine the anguish of that lonely cry "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me!"), but to pointedly draw our self serving attentions to it for His glory and for our edification.

It was alone the Savior prayed  In dark Gethsemane;
Alone He drained the bitter cup   And suffered there for me.
Alone, alone, He bore it all alone; He gave Himself to save His own,
He suffered,
bled and died alone, alone.
It was alone the Savior stood   In Pilate’s judgment hall; Alone the
crown of thorns He wore,   Forsaken thus by all.
Alone upon the cross He hung   That others He might save; Forsaken
then by God and man.   Alone, His life He gave.
Can you reject such matchless love?   Can you His claim disown? Come,
give your all in gratitude,   Nor leave Him thus alone.

It Was Alone The Savior Prayed - Benjamin H. Price 1914


The voice of God vs the voice of Satan I listen to heavy music and I have had people tell me on numerous occasions the vocals sound like the voice of Satan, even when the band is clearly Christian (see For Today if you are curious). Movies tend to portray Satan with a raspy, scary, loud voice, but what does the bible say? And conversely, what does the bible say about the voice of God? Here are some verses I found:

Exodus 19:19 (NIV)

  As the sound of the trumpet grew louder and louder, Moses spoke and
  the voice of God answered him.

Deuteronomy 5:22 (NIV)

  These are the commandments the LORD proclaimed in a loud voice to your
  whole assembly there on the mountain from out of the fire...

1 Kings 19:12 (NIV)

  After the earthquake came a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire.
  And after the fire came a gentle whisper.

Job 37:2-5 (NIV)

  Listen! Listen to the roar of his voice, to the rumbling that comes
  from his mouth.  ... After that comes the sound of his roar; he
  thunders with his majestic voice.  When his voice resounds, he holds
  nothing back. God’s voice thunders in marvelous ways...

I couldn't find anything on the voice of Satan.

Is the voice of the devil ever described in the Word or is it something man made?

I think what you are seeing is a reaction to a stereotype created by our culture and the popular media.  Much like the picture in the minds of many people of the Devil parading around in red tights with a pitch fork.

In actual fact, scripture teaches us that Lucifer, whose name means "Light Bearer", was the "Morning Star" who fell from heaven in Isa 14 and Ezekiel 28 describes him as "the seal of perfection, Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty".  He is understood to have been an archangel and a prince of heavenly worship.  Other scripture teaches that he comes as an "angel of light" (2 Cor 11:14).

So, in actual fact, the devil is likely to present as someone visually and audibly beautiful.  Some allowance may need to be made for subsequent corruption after he fell, but since angels are purely spiritual beings, they likely can manifest in our realm in any form that serves their purpose.

Now, while I personally don't care for grungy metal and don't find it either pleasing or uplifting, I find it unlikely that it's inherently demonic simply because it uses raspy metallic vocals.


Why did Joseph and Mary take one day's time to realize that Jesus had been left behind at the Temple? We read in   Luke 2: 43-46, the incident relating to the visit of child Jesus and his parents to the Temple  and his `getting lost' at Jerusalem:

  After the festival was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it.  Thinking he was in their company, they traveled on for a day. Then they began looking for him among their relatives and friends.  When they did not find him, they went back to Jerusalem to look for him.

The distance they would have to cover from Jerusalem to Nazareth was 65 miles and it would take them days together to complete the journey. Some traditions say (sorry, I am not able to quote any reference) that in those days, men and women took separate routes because of which each of the parents was unable to communicate with the other,  the presence of children with either of them. One is, however, unable to know why it took one day for Jesus'parents to realize that he  had been left behind.
My question therefore,  is: who does the Catholic Church explain the time of one day that Jesus' parents  took to conclude that boy Jesus had been left behind at the Temple in Jerusalem.

Luke 2:43-44--and as they were returning, after spending the full number of days, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. But His parents were unaware of it, but supposed Him to be in the caravan, and went a day's journey; and they began looking for Him among their relatives and acquaintances.

As DJClayworth mentioned in his comment above, it may well have been assumed that he was with them There's no evidence that His parents even questioned His being in the caravan. He would have been among relatives and acquaintances and there would be very little reason for them to believe He was elsewhere.


If the Holy Spirit is God, and God can not be in the presence of sin, then how can the Holy Spirit dwell in me a sinner? If we believe in the Trinity, in essense that the Holy Spirit is God, and we believe that God can not be in the presence of sin, then how can the Holy Spirit dwell within me a sinner?

The idea that God cannot be in the presence of sin may come from the prayer in Habakkuk 1:13.  In the NIV it says, "Your eyes are too pure to look upon evil."

The question, then, is, "Is this teaching the God is unable to look at evil?"  If it is teaching that, then this would need to fit with the whole of Scripture.

Psalm 139 expressly states that God knows and sees everything that occurs, which would include evil.  God also came to Adam and Eve after their sin.  He visited Sodom to see the evil that was there.  He observed the Israelites fashioning a golden calf and worshiping it.  In Job, Satan comes into God's presence and has discussions with Him.  Jesus, too, walked among us and certainly was in the presence of evil His whole life.

So, it seems clear that God does see evil and He does allow sin to come into His presence.  Indeed, if all have sinned (and continue to do so), God must be able to be in the presence of sin to indwell those who have placed their trust in the redemption of Christ.

A key point here is that those who have trusted Christ are, according to the Scriptures, declared righteous in His sight--forgiven.  The debt is fully paid.  No charge can be entertained against us.

Now God's work of redemption will be fully complete when He fully removed that which He hates (sin) from that which He loves (His people).


According to the Catholic Church, does God punish sinners? When reading the Old Testament it seems that God punishes bad behavior. But according to the Catholic Church (catechism?) are sins punished by God, for example, in purgatory is it more like a karma, that sins themselves cause 'punishments'?

In the RCC, Purgatory is only a place where people eventually destined for heaven go. It is a place of purification and not punishment, before heading into eventual bliss with the all pure God. Unrepentant sinners who do not accept the salvation of Christ are destined for Hell, and will receive punishment for their sins.


Why are some words of Jesus in Aramaic transliterated in the Gospels of Mark? There are a few instances in the Gospels where the words originally spoken by Jesus are transliterated . For instance, we see at Mark 5:41 ;" He took her by the hand and said to her, “Talitha koum!” (which means “Little girl, I say to you, get up!”).    We also see at Mark 15:34: " At three o’clock Jesus cried out with a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

One would be  curious to know as to why only a few original  words of Jesus in Aramaic are transliterated in  the Gospel . Did  evangelist Mark intend to give certain emphasis by quoting the original words ? What is the Catholic Church's teaching on this topic ?

In the case of "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani" (Mark 15,34) the Aramaic is needed to explain the misunderstanding in verse 35 when some of the crowd think He is calling for Elijah. The mistake is explicable only because of the similarity between the sound Eloi and the sound Elijah.

In the case of "Talitha kuom" (Mark 5, 41) the Aramaic phrase seems to have connotations which are lost in translation to the Greek. Hastings Bible dictionary describes links between talitha and lamb and suggests  the phrase might be translated into English as "Lambkin arise", as we too have a word, Lambkin, which is both a term of endearment addressed to a child, and a small lamb. Matthew Henry says that Dr Lightfoot says kuom (arise) was also used as a way of wishing a speedy recovery when addressed to a sick person. Possibly then the Aramaic phrase in English could be something like "Lambkin, get betterl". The inability to fully convey the gentleness of Christ's words into Greek led Mark to leave it in Aramaic for readers who understood that language, or might learn the phrase, while also providing a better than nothing  translation in Greek for other readers.

Boanerges (Mark 3, 17) was given as a nickname to James and John, it is translated as Sons of Thunder. Here, Boanerges is given as a name, so it is transliterated as a name, and then its meaning given to show its derivation. They were not addressed as Sons of Thunder, but as Boagernes.

In the case of "Abba" Father  (Mark 14,36) the Aramaic word Abba is retained along with the Greek word for Father. In English  we have many words ("Dad", "Papa", "Pop", "Daddy", "Pater", "Farv" etc) all of which mean father but all of which hold different connotations. Mark may have felt that Abba conveyed a peculiar mix of intimacy and respect which he didn't want to lose, but couldn't exactly translate.

In the case of "Corban" (Mark 7, 11), which is translated as dedicated to God, the explanation here is that Corban was used as a technical term, or piece of jargon, referring to a particular practice. This could loosely be simplified as dedicated to God. There is  a little more to it than the plain meaning,  that Mark does not really want to go into there.

Ephphatha (Mark 7 34) was the cry uttered by Jesus when healing the deaf and dumb man. This was used in some liturgies at Baptism and Mark may have been indicating its origins here. Also it was such a startling cry that it must have been remembered by all who heard it.

There may also be the use of one or two literary devices.

Agatha Christies Poirot, a Belgian detective living in London, speaks perfect English most of the time which is good as otherwise readers could not understand him. However he often says "mon ami" (my friend) or Mademoiselle ("Miss") and this serves to remind the audience that he was foreign. Mark may have wanted readers to remember that Jesus didn't really speak Greek and so to firmly root his gospel in Palestine for the benefit of his readers.

On the Royal Mile in Edinburgh is a house called Heave Awa House. The previous house on that site collapsed and a man called Joseph  was  trapped in the rubble. The searchers were about to give up when they heard him say  "Heave awa lads, I'm no deid yet". This has become part of Edinburgh folklore.  In I637 a new and, many felt, less Protestant, Prayer Book was introduced to Edinburgh St Giles Cathedral. During the service a fishwife called Jenny Geddes exclaimed "Daur ye say Mass in my  lug?" (dare you say Mass in my ear) and threw her stool at the minister. This led to riots inside and outside the Cathedral, throughout Edinburgh and across Scotland, and arguably was one cause of the English Civil War. It is the simple colloquial phrases of Joseph and Jenny  which are remembered,  and seem to add so much to their stories.  Similarly, the directness and vernacular simplicity of some of Christ's sayings add a directness to Mark's Gospel.


Is John 3:23 contradicted by 1 John 4:5-6? Does the born again experience happen by the Holy Spirit or by both the word of God/Gospel and Holy Spirit? Is John 3:23 contradicted by 1 John 4:5-6? From this comes following: does the born again experience happen by the Holy Spirit or by both the word of God/Gospel and Holy Spirit?

And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world. (John 3:23, KJV, emphasis mine)
They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. (1 John 4:5-6, KJV latter)

This site claims that John 3:23 refutes LDS claim of pre-existence.

The most important thing when interpreting a passage is the context:

John 8:21-23 ESV So he [Jesus] said to them [Pharisees] again, “I am going away, and you will seek me, and you will die in your sin. Where I am going, you cannot come." So the Jews said, “Will he kill himself, since he says, ‘Where I am going, you cannot come’?” He said to them, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.
1 John 4:2-6 ESV By this you [John's disciples] know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already. Little children, you are from God and have overcome them, for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. They are from the world; therefore they speak from the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

[bracket stuff added by me]
Do these passages contradict? Not at all--in fact their ideas are almost identical.
Jesus was telling the Pharisees that they were from below--from the fallen world. They refused to believe in him and he was identifying that as a belief from below. Contrast this with 1 John, which is saying the same thing to a different crowd. John is saying a belief in Jesus as the savior is a belief (spirit) from above. John is reinforcing Jesus' words.


What is the earliest explicit mention of infant baptism? The Bible describes several adults being baptized (notably Jesus and the Ethiopian eunuch that Phillip baptized). And while it mentions many others being baptized, it doesn't explicitly mention infants (although supporters of infant baptism do have a biblical basis).

What is the earliest explicit mention in historical documents of infants being baptized? I'm guessing that such a mention might take the form of a specific reference to an individual or group of infants being baptized, or something like instructions for the process of baptizing infants.

(To clarify, I am looking for explicit references to infant baptism outside of the Bible; there is considerable debate over whether the scriptures support infant baptism or if they only allowed for credobaptism alone. All of that is more suited to other questions on this site).

What is the earliest explicit mention of infant baptism?
It seems that St. Irenaeus (202 AD) is the earliest to reference to the practice of infant baptism. In 185 AD, he wrote the following:

Irenaeus, c. A.D. 185:

He came to save all through means of Himself—all … who through Him are born again* to God—infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission … (Against Heresies II:22:4)

*Note here that the term "born again" was synonymous with baptism to early Christians. That really didn't change until the time of the pietists in the 17th century. - Infant Baptism

There is no argument against infant baptism in the Early Church although Tertullian himself favored believer's baptism.

One argument in support of the baptism of infants comes from the fact that controversy over the practice is conspicuously absent from the history of the early church. There is no question that Origen was baptized as an infant in 180 A.D., just 80 years after the death of the last Apostle, John the Evangelist. There are other possible references to infant baptism at earlier dates, but these references are somewhat unclear in their meaning. Born in the mid fourth century (358 A.D.), Augustine wrote, "This doctrine is held by the whole church, not instituted by councils, but always retained." Tertullian (ca. 155-230) did argue in favor of believer's baptism, but this was in reaction to the un-biblical practice that was being taught in some areas that Christians should wait to be baptized until just before death, and not in reaction to infant baptism. Francis Schaeffer argued, "Those who would teach that the practice of the early Church was not infant baptism should be able to show in Church History when it started. There is no such break recorded." - Infant baptism

For more on infant baptism and the Church Fathers one can read this:

Irenaeus
“He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age” (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).
“‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]” (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).
Hippolytus
"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).
Origen
“Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous” (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).
“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]). - The Church Fathers: Infant Baptism

For those interested the following question may be helpful: Has the term “born again” always been synonymous with baptism with the Christians of the Early Church?
Use the "Comment" button if you can find a reliable, accurate reference to an original pre-17th century document that separates the term "born again" from baptism. I'd be happy to see it.


What does the Bible have to say about dinosaurs? Archaeology has found many dinosaur fossils.  Does the Bible have anything to say about the existence of dinosaurs?

Some commentators (such as the Institute for Creation Research) have suggested that Leviathan (otherwise a Hapax Legomenon) in Job 41 is a dinosaur. Not all agree, but it is at least "out there" as a theory.
Prior to the 1820s, dinosaurs were unknown to (modern) man[1], so it is not surprising the are not mentioned in the Bible. (Indeed, the term would have had no meaning).
If the case is that Leviathan is a dinsoaur, then we read:

1 Can you pull in the leviathan with a fishhook or tie down his tongue with a rope?
2 Can you put a cord through his nose or pierce his jaw with a hook?
3 Will he keep begging you for mercy? Will he speak to you with gentle words?
4 Will he make an agreement with you for you to take him as your slave for life?
5 Can you make a pet of him like a bird or put him on a leash for your girls?
6 Will traders barter for him? Will they divide him up among the merchants?
7 Can you fill his hide with harpoons or his head with fishing spears?
8 If you lay a hand on him, you will remember the struggle and never do it again!
9 Any hope of subduing him is false; the mere sight of him is overpowering.
10 No-one is fierce enough to rouse him. Who then is able to stand against me?

Basically, they are big and strong, but God is bigger.

[1]: To be clear, most scientists believe that man was just a mouse during the age of the dinosaur, and even old earth Creationists suspect that the dinosaurs had died out in the "two days" before man.  During the 1800s, I believe it was Paley who suggested that the dinosaurs must have died out shortly after the flood.  A few die-hard Young Earthers (like the ICR) still advocate that, but for the most part "The Land of the Lost" is just that.


Lot's virgin daughters had husbands According to Genesis 19:7-8 (NASB), Lot offered his virgin daughters to the men of the city so they would not sodomize the visiting angels:

  7 “Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly. 8 Now behold, I have two
  daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring
  them out to you, and do to them whatever you like..."

However, Genesis 19:14 (NASB) implies they either had husbands or were pledged to husbands:

  "Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were to marry his
  daughters..."

Am I missing something?

Genesis 19:14 NIV

So Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were pledged to
marry his daughters[a]
[a] Genesis 19:14 Or were married to

They were in the first stages of marriage, which if it were modern times, it would be like engaged - but different (see below).  The marriage was not consummated and therefore they were still virgins. To further solidify this as the answer, it is obvious that his daughters still lived with him, therefore the marriage was not in the second stage (nuptials, chuppah) but still in the first stage (Kichah)
To find out more about the process of marriage in early Judaism please follow this link - I have included part of it below.

Kichah ("taking," the formal acquisition) approximates the economic
term kinyan and seals the marriage. Because this is the first stage in
the process of creating a covenant of partnership, unions that are
prohibited and void, such as incest, are never referred to in the
Torah by the term kichah, but as she'khivah (sleeping together). In
regard to almost all valid marriages, even those that are prohibited,
the Torah makes specific reference to kichah.
This first stage of marriage is not a preliminary agreement to
contract a marriage at a future date (like the western concept of
engagement), but an integral component of the two-step marriage
process. The betrothal portion is a sort of inchoate marriage; from
that point onward, the couple is considered married. Until the second
step is taken, however, the bride may not cohabit with the groom (or
any other man). In this social suspension that marks the difficult
transition from the single life to the married state, the couple is
together yet apart. Until the twelfth century, this first stage of
marriage lasted up to one year in order to make preparations for the
final step. The second stage of the marriage process is the
consummation. It is alternatively termed nissuin, meaning elevation of
status, from nassa, coming by carriage from the father's home to the
groom's; or chuppah, wedding canopy.


Does one sin if he refuses food that is put before him? According to Catholicism, is it sinful to refuse food that is put before you, because you does not like the particular food? We suppose that the food served is made for the one who eats it (not in the restaurant, but say for example mother cooks for a child or a cook for the religious)? Is it a mortal sin, and what kind of sin is being committed?

Assuming no sickness* or Church fasting and abstinence law impedes him from being able to eat the food, he commits a sin of ingratitude and gluttony by refusing it.

There are five species of gluttony, which, following St. Gregory the Great, St. Thomas explains Summa Theologica II-II q. 148 a. 4 co., where one seeks

"sumptuous" or "costly food" (pretiosos)
"food prepared too nicely—i.e. 'daintily'" (studiose)
"eating 'too much'" (nimis)(This is what most people understand by gluttony.)
"eat[ing] 'hastily'" (præpropere), not at "the proper time for eating"(snacking, eating between meals)
"eating 'greedily'" (ardenter), where "one fails to observe the due manner of eating"(eating too fast or voraciously)

St. Gregory sums this up in: "praepropere, laute, nimis, ardenter, studiose" ("hastily, sumptuously, too much, greedily, daintily").

Gluttony becomes a mortal sin when (ibid.)

  the inordinate concupiscence in gluttony be found to turn man away from the last end […]. This is the case when he adheres to the pleasure of gluttony as his end, for the sake of which he contemns God, being ready to disobey God's commandments, in order to obtain those pleasures.

and it's venial

  when a man has too great a desire for the pleasures of the palate, yet would not for their sake do anything contrary to God's law

*As was the case with St. Catherine of Siena, for example, an her confessor recounts (Legenda maior pt. 2 ch. 5): "If she forced herself to eat, her body suffered extremely, her digestion would not function, and the food had to come out with an effort by the way it had gone in. It is difficult to estimate the amount of suffering that this holy virgin experienced through swallowing food."She was not ungrateful or glutinous: "God for my sins has afflicted me with a special kind of illness that makes it impossible for me to eat; I should like to be able to eat, but I can’t. Pray for me, that God will forgive me my sins, which make me have to suffer all these evils."


Is 1 Corinthians 15:28 disregarded by trinitarians? International Standard Version:

But when everything has been put under him, then the Son himself will also become subject to the one who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

The New Living Translation:

Then, when all things are under his authority, the Son will put himself under God’s authority, so that God, who gave his Son authority over all things, will be utterly supreme over everything everywhere.

Jesus is made subject to God, under God's authority so he cannot be equal to God.
Please note this verse refers to a resurrected Christ.
I would like to know if the verse is disregarded by trinitarians or how they reconcile it with their beliefs.

That the Son (in regard to his Deity) should have a relationship with his Father, which is a matter of filial and voluntary subjection, does not mean that he is not equal in Deity to the Father.
Equal in Divine nature, or 'form', as we see in Philippians :

who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal to God, [Philippians 2:6 YLT]

Yet within that equality of Deity, the Son says :

... My Father is greater than I. [John 14:28 KJV]

One needs to understand both the matter of divine nature and also the matter of divine relationship within that nature.
And one also needs to bear in mind the fact that God is God in respect of the Son of God's divine nature but also God in regard to the humanity of Jesus Christ.

But unto the Son [God saith], Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. [Hebrews 1:8.]

I think the premise of the question is incorrect.
Trinitarians, in general, are very well aware of the whole balance of truth in regard to both divine nature, divine relationship within that nature, and well aware of the relationship in regard to the humanity of Christ, also.
The text under discussion (1 Corinthians 15:28) is not disregarded. It is well understood.

and when the all things may be subjected to him, then the Son also himself shall be subject to Him, who did subject to him the all things, that God may be the all in all.

[1 Corinthians 15:28 Young's Literal Translation]

The question expresses an unsubstantiated opinion about the 'disregard' to the text and I do not think that opinion is correct. My experience of Trinitarian denominations over the past fifty three years of my life (I was converted at the age of sixteen in 1967) is that the text is not disregarded. It is fundamental to a proper understanding of the divine relationship of the Son of God to the Father and of the human relationship of Jesus Christ to God.

Basil the Great, 330-379, who supported the Nicene Creed, had this to say about 1 Corinthians 15:28 :

So there need be no hesitation from anyone in taking this to mean that what the Father is greater than is the form of a servant, whereas the Son is his equal in the form of God

And Augustine of Hippo, 354-430, comments thus :

when every creature is made subject to God, including even the creature in which the Son of God became the Son of man, for in this created form “the Son himself shall also be subject to the one who subjected all things to him, that God may be all in all (1 Cor. 15:28).

Both Quotes are from secundumscripturas Basil and Augustine on 1 Corinthians 15:28
Athanasius of Alexandria, 297-373, writes on the same text :

For this subjection, no more involves inferiority of essence, than His subjection (Luke 2:51) to Joseph and Mary involved inferiority of essence to them.

This quote is taken from the Cambridge Bible Commentary paragraph on Biblehub - 1 Corinthians 15:28 on which page are extensive articles by Trinitarians who quote other Trinitarians in some very involved and learned discussions, dealing with the original language in precise and academic detail.
No. Not at all 'disregarded'.


Non-movable feasts in the Lent and Easter seasons The latest possible date for Ash Wednesday is March 10th and the earliest possible date for Pentecost is May 10th.  Besides the movable feasts, is there any indication that the Catholic Church places those feasts inside of these seasons for specific reasons?

For instance, the Solemnity of St. Joseph is March 19th, this date is always in Lent (although the feast may be transferred to Easter), yet it is a Holy Day of Obligation in many places, (generally means it is equivalent with a Sunday in saying "you need to go to Church today").  Is it, and other feasts, placed inside Lent or Easter to further the purposes that their respective seasons seek to celebrate?

It has to do with, as with the Orthodox, the position of Easter (Pascha) which is a reflection of the calculation of the Passover prior to Pentecost.

Given the common tradition in both Rome and the East on this, at least for Ash Wednesday and Pentecost, it has all to do with their positions vis a vis Easter. It says the 'last possible' or 'first possible' because - lets say Ash Wednesday is the Wednesday in the week seven weeks before Easter - since Easter cannot be earlier than a certain date, nor can Ash Wednesday. The same logic follows for Pentecost, which is - going back before Christ - the fifty-day after Passover celebration.

As for St. Joseph's solemnity I can't say, I don't know the history (this feast is not in Orthodoxy.) Generally the explanation for any fixed feast (which can either be fixed against the date of Easter or the date of the First of the Year) is entirely historical.

Inclusion of feasts specifically in Lent, as for instance in our tradition, The Sunday of Orthodoxy, or the Sunday of St. Mary of Egypt, has much to do with the catechetical, ascetical character of Lent itself and special lenten tide feasts reflect that.

Annunciation on the other hand, sometimes in the Old Calendar can occur ON EASTER. This is called Kyriepascha, and you can't move Annunciation or Pascha. So you DO ALL THE PRAYERS. Which means all the texts specific to each feast are done, and considering how strange Pascha is structured, it's a crazy service!


What does it mean to say an original Greek manuscript did not survive? What does it mean when they say Greek manuscripts, written by the original authors, did not survive? I don't Understand this statement.

Without context more specific than "they say", it is difficult to know what was meant. However, such a statement is likely to be referring to no longer having the original copies of New Testament writings. Only copies of copies are now available.

This is to be expected as wear by use, environment conditions, and the ordinary misplacement and destruction of items. The same statement can be made for other documents of similar age.

Consider this image of one of the Dead Sea Scrolls (as a convenient example):

This is a document that was intentionally preserved without use in a reasonably friendly environment and isolated and hidden enough to avoid destruction by war, accidental fire, etc. Although centuries older than any New Testament documents would be, this still hints at why copying is the most reliable means of preserving information.


Which Christian groups prohibit playing cards, and what is their basis for doing so? When I was a child I remember hearing that some Christians strongly opposed the use of playing cards. If I remember correctly, it wasn't just for gambling games such as Poker, but even for children's games such as Go Fish. I have always assumed that this prohibition was linked to a particular denomination(s), but I have not personally encountered anyone since then that has held this view.

Are there any Christian groups that prohibit the use of playing cards, and what is their basis for doing so?

Wikipedia offers some reasons why cards, specifically of the "French Design" (that is, a "standard" 52-card deck) might be prohibited, especially by sects which take a fairly strict anti-pagan, or anti-astrological stands:

  Popular legend holds that the composition of a deck of cards has religious, mystical, or astrological significance.[citation needed]

  Thus each suit of 13 cards represents the 13 lunar months of the Earth year. Since the sidereal lunar month may be approximated to 28 days, each deck is equal to 364 days of the year.

  Similarly, the whole deck of 52 cards represents the 52 weeks of the year. Therefore, the whole deck is also equal to 364 days of the year (the positivist calendar) with the four suits corresponding to the four seasons.

  The ace is symbolically “alpha and omega” or “the beginning and end.”

Apparently official Mormon doctrine does (or did?) prohibit playing card games with a standard 52-card deck (Rook is permitted):

  Growing up, conventional playing cards were banned in my home. We only used Rook. One only had to open up “Mormon Doctrine” to see why my parents banned the cards. It reads, “Members of the Church should not belong to bridge or other type of card clubs, and they should neither play cards nor have them in their homes. By cards is meant, of course, the spotted face cards used by gamblers. To the extent that church members play cards they are out of harmony with their inspired leaders. Innocent non-gambling games played with other types of cards, except for the waste of time in many instances, are not objectionable.”

This history of playing cards makes references to several places where card games were prohibited in or near churches--I see no reference to church members being prohibited from playing in other locations.

Summary

It's a common rule among certain, generally more conservative Christian groups, that card games should not be played, and the rule varies a lot in how strictly it is interpreted.  It is also a rule which, like many such rules, has almost certainly been observed more strictly in the past than in the present.

Some groups may go so far as to prohibit all playing cards.

More common is prohibiting the standard 52-card deck. Either because of its association with gambling, or the occult/astrology, apparently.

More common these days is a simple prohibition of gambling games--possibly even when money isn't used.

Anecdote

My parents both grew up in the Nazarene church, my dad the son of a Nazarene pastor.  They were forbidden to drink, dance, and attend movie theaters.  I'm pretty sure I remember my mother telling me she also wasn't allowed to play card games as a child.  The reason, as I understood it, is that cards are used for gambling, so they carry the "appearance of evil" (1 Thessalonians 5:22).

I believe my mother played Dutch Blitz as a child, which uses a different deck design.

NOTE: I'm pretty sure the card prohibition is not a Nazarene doctrine; perhaps just her specific church. Google shows multiple references to Nazarene-church-sponsored events where participants are encouraged to bring card games!


According to Catholicism, is it possible for the Devil to kill someone? We read in the Book of Job that the Devil received permission from God to torment Job, and that God obliged the Devil to spare his life.

  The LORD said to Satan, "Very well, then, he is in your hands; but you must spare his life." (Job 2:6)

According to Catholicism is it at all possible for the Devil to kill someone? If yes are there any historical examples of this being done, either directly or indirectly as through an exorcism or diabolic possession?

Matthew 10:28, New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE), says:

  "Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell."

Incidentally, Mark 5:11–13 narrates an incident where the devil kills animals after possessing them:

  "Now there on the hillside a great herd of swine was feeding; and the unclean spirits begged him, “Send us into the swine; let us enter them.” So he gave them permission. And the unclean spirits came out and entered the swine; and the herd, numbering about two thousand, rushed down the steep bank into the sea, and were drowned in the sea."

It is only natural that the devil is able to do similar thing to human beings. Whether he needs to obtain permission  from the Lord of Life for doing such an action, as is mentioned in the case of Job, and even in the case of swines, is a matter of further discussion.