Genesis 19. 8 Why should he protect strangers above protect his daughters? Possible Duplicate:
  Why was Lot “let off the hook” for offering his daughters to be raped?

I was interested in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, cause I remembered at it as I heard it in my youth.

There is a part where Lot said that the people who wanted to have the strangers could have his two virgin daughters instead.

  Genesis 19:
      8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. [KJV]

What is the reason behind this behavior? He protects two strangers (he doesn’t know at this moment that they are angels) before protecting his own daughters?

As I'm an atheist and a reasonable person, I would preferring protecting my own daughters before some strangers, if I had just one choice. So I can’t answer my question by myself.

Remember that in that context Lot would have considered his daughters (and they would have regarded themselves) as his possessions. The Romans later had an idea - a law really - that the ownership of parents, particularly fathers, extended to the right at any time, even after adulthood, of the father to kill his children. It was perfectly legal and understood to be his right as a father to mete out that punishment if he saw fit to do so. One can imagine however, much more responsibility was typically imputed to fathers because of this, so a father could easily be held responsible for even the errors of an adult child.

Given this, we must consider that Lot was so extreme in his practice of hospitality that he would rather sacrifice his most valuable possessions (his daughters) than have his guests - 'the stranger and the alien' the scripture will later say - be treated wrongly. Since in our context we do not consider our children possessions, his expression could not be parsed properly in our context. Thus his actions are entirely consistent with the tradition regarding the way one treats the poor, the stranger and the alien, the weak, the sick, abd so forth.

If Lot had not considered his daughters possessions, there would be a completely different meaning to his statement. It was not until fairly recently, IIRC, that children were no longer regarded as possessions.

Then again, just to throw a wrench in the works, seeing the stunt his daughters pull later on, maybe his action was somewhat prescient.


Is Christmas biblical? Possible Duplicate:
  Why is Christmas on December 25th?
  When did Christmas (the birth of Christ) first begin as a Christian celebration?
  On which date was Christ born?
  Also Related:
  Why do some traditions *not* celebrate Christmas or Easter in any official fashion?
  Does Christianity allow Christians to celebrate other holidays?
  Why do some traditions *not* celebrate Christmas or Easter in any official fashion?
  Se also: The christmas tag.

I have a curiosity about our celebrations, for instance Christmas, based on Jesus birth. It is not biblical.

25 December is a pagan date, commemoration of Mitra's birth and not Jesus's birth.

The only clue about Jesus birth is that of the shepherds who visited Him, they were still in the fields, which lets us eliminate the month of December, as the harsh winter in the northern hemisphere did not allow the action.

And I never saw a Christian not celebrating the Christmas even it been a pagan celebration.

There are other dates that I have doubts but I'll leave them for another question later.

Is my information correct about it?

If Christians were left to celebrating sacred events on days where no other pagan celebration has ever occurred, there would be no days available for Christian celebrations.  So, on a day where some people at a certain time celebrated the birth of a god that never existed, Christians (Catholic and Protestant) choose to celebrate the birth of Jesus the Messiah.  The two celebrations have absolutely nothing to do with each other, other than that they occur on the same day.  (The common days for the Orthodox Christmas are January 6 and 7).

It is certainly possible that it was originally selected because it had been the celebration of a birth of a false deity before.  That would make sense.  The idea of redeeming a day of worshiping the birth of a false deity by celebrating the birth of the one true Lord and Messiah and worshiping Him is a great idea.

This would be especially so for people who come out of false religions worshiping false gods.  As they continue to live in a culture that has various sacred observances, why not provide an alternative to these that worship the true and living God?

So, Jesus was definitely born, and it's a great thing to remember this incredible event each year in worship.  We don't know exactly what day He was born, but December 25th is certainly fine.  The kids are out of school, there are a lot of sales going on, and we have a day off of work.  Why not?


How do we resolve the issue with the circular argument that the Bible is the basis for its own authority? This is a continuation from the previous question, "Why is the Bible a foundation of theological evidence?"

But this time I'd like the question to focus on the issue of what looks like a circular argument, which was an issue that was raised but looks like it needed further discussion.

So the issue is: it is said that the Bible is authoritative because the Bible says so. But who is to say that the Bible is right in saying so?

it is said that the Bible is authoritative because the Bible says so.

I have yet to hear this from a Christian. Does not seem like anything a apologist would say. Can you quote someone who says this because I suspect this is a strawman of the arguments that Christian make.

I think it would be better to say that the basis for the authority of the new testament is that the New Testament was written for the most part by people who knew Jesus. They where his first followers. His Apostles.

So if you want to go against the teachings of the bible regarding Jesus you would need to have 1st century Judean author who knew Jesus personally and attests to things in contradiction with the bible.

I do not think such a testimony exist. You have the Gnostic gospels written three-and-a-half centuries after Christ or the Quran that was written six centuries after Christ, but the New Testament stands alone among the world religion's holy books as being the only one that had intimate personal knowledge of who Jesus was.

The New Testament is rife with eye witness accounts of Jesus. Jesus even made post mortem appearances to almost 500 people as 1 Corinthians 15v6 tells us.

This is a common misconception that unbelievers have of Christians that we are all taking religion on some sort of blind faith. As you investigate the ancient evidences for Jesus's resurrection you come to realize that Jesus interacted with the world in a very real way and we can prove that using nothing more than general historical analysis.

We as Christian are very lucky in that way

I could say more, but I'd leave it there


Do Catholics regard the wine at The Wedding at Cana as "holy" wine or "normal" wine? Jesus said to the servants, “Fill the jars with water”; so they filled them to the brim. Then he told them, “Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet.” They did so, and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. John 2:7-9

My Question: Do Catholics regard the wine at The Wedding at Cana as "holy" wine or "normal" wine?

Emphasis: Do they have a special reverence for this wine, similar to how they have a reverence for relics?

The wine was just wine, but it was very good wine.

  the steward called the bridegroom 10 and said to him, “Everyone serves
  the good wine first, and then the inferior wine after the guests have
  become drunk. But you have kept the good wine until now.” John 2:9-10

The wine no longer exists so it is not a relic. The wine was not sacramental, so it was not holy in that sense. There is no teaching that I know of that says the wine was blessed. The fact that it was consumed as any other wine would be suggests there was nothing special about the wine other than it being created miraculously and being good in the sense of being a good wine.


Why did the Commonwealth Parliament ban theatre? I've known for a while that theatre was banned under Cromwell, because the Puritans disapproved of it. What was their objection?

Wikipedia adds this information:

  Pastimes such as the theatre and gambling were also banned. However, some forms of art that were thought to be 'virtuous', such as opera, were encouraged. These changes are often credited to Oliver Cromwell, though they were originally introduced by the Commonwealth Parliament; and Cromwell, when he came to power, was a liberalising influence.

Assuming that's true, in what sense is the opera more virtuous than the theatre?

I do not believe this can be explained by the facts surrounding the ban, but it can be (1) explained from scripture. The scriptural explanation can then be validated by (2) interesting facts surrounding the case.

(1) This is all about the doctrine of ’weak scruple’s and ’weak faith’ leading to the belief that the art of theater was unredeemable and worthy of a ban. This effectively attributes its practice as 'evil'. Just as banning Christian rap-music today would be attributing that form of music as unredeemable and literally 'evil'.

Although much more reasonably grounded, some ‘weak brothers’ back in the apostle's days also had ‘weak scruples’ and ‘weak faith’. 'Eating meats' 'sacrificed to idols' even when sold in the common market, seemed very horrible to them, because they could not shake their superstitions. They actually believed idols were real gods and 'evil.'. To this, Paul say's even though those who are stronger in their faith understand that this is not actually a sin (because there are no real gods) they must be careful in love not to offend their brother. They then need to think a bit before practicing their freedom in a way that might offend.

  10For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, won’t he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? 11So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. (1 Corinthians 8:10-11)

In the end, Paul says you can still be free in your private life but not when others bring this question of conscience in your face:

  27If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. 28But if anyone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, both for the sake of the man who told you and for conscience’ sake b— 29the other man’s conscience, I mean, not yours. For why should my freedom be judged by another’s conscience? (1 Corinthians 10:27-29)

So the doctrine says that it is those of weak faith that assign material things to sin, whether it be drama, music, art, or even as horrible and 'sinful appearing' as food sacrificed to idols!

(2)  In the case of the ban of theatre there is an interesting article (secular source) describing these events in detail called, THE CLOSURE OF THE THEATERS BY THE PURITANS.

The facts of the case show that on the 6th of September, 1642, the theaters were closed by ordinance. Then in 1656 they began to reopen. An interesting fact at the same time is one of the most influential Puritan writers, John Owen, was alive and preching in those very same years. He was a highly influential and an academic administrator at the University of Oxford and lived over the years 1616 to August 1683. In 1651, on October 24 he preached the thanksgiving sermon before parliament. This Puritan was very aware of the ban.

These surrounding facts lead to confirming the scriptural explanation, for Owen was a person who seems to have ‘great faith’. As evidence, in all the thousands of pages from his brilliant works, not once did he mentioned 'card playing', 'theatre', or any other similar past-time. He was so Christ focused that he could not be at all bothered, whatever his personal views may have been. I am referring to his published works, written by him.

So even at this time in 1642, when weak scrupled legalists were embarrassing the name of Christ, by banning theatre, and more pompously by promoting the 'upper class' entertainment of 'opera', strong believers were not bothered to even refer to the subject in their voluminous thoughts on a multitude of subjects. They may have avoided all such entertainments, so as not to offend their weaker brothers, but that only further manifest their maturity.

Regarding why 'theatre' was banned and not 'opera', it’s not difficult to imagine that 'sinners' would have enjoyed theatre more than opera. The language of theatre has always delveded more into sexual innuendo, etc. But in the end, not all plays could have been ‘filthy’. Opera would also seemed more proper as it would have appealed to the arrogance associated with the ‘upper class'. In conclusion, if Jesus would have come at that time this verse might have substituted the word 'tax collectors' with 'actors':

  10While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and “sinners” came and ate with him and his disciples. 11When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and ‘sinners’?” (Mathew 9:10)


Does God, according to Catholic theology, precondition His help on other people's prayers and if so, why? We are told by the Church many times the importance of prayers for others. It would seem that we can help other people by praying for them, or, to be more precise, we can plead God's grace for those who we pray for.

Let us reverse this statement. Then it would seem that if we don't pray for others, then God will deny them His grace He would give them if we were praying for them.

This seems to be almost explicitly stated in Fatima apparitions:

  Pray much and make sacrifices for sinners, for many souls go to hell because there is no one to make sacrifices for them.

Does this mean that God preconditions His aid for sinners on other people's prayers? If so, why? How to reconcile such a statement with God's infinite love, according to which He should do whatever is possible and whatever will not violate a man's freedom to save them from eternal damnation and bring them to Heaven? Since the fact that no one prays for a man is hardly their guilt, how to reconcile such a statement with God's fairness, according to which he probably shouldn't precondition His actions towards a person on anything other than that person's will, and especially not if eternal salvation is at stake?

First, you must understand what the RCC teach about grace. Here.
2002

God's free initiative demands man's free response, for God has created
man in his image by conferring on him, along with freedom, the power
to know him and love him. The soul only enters freely into the
communion of love. God immediately touches and directly moves the
heart of man...

Following this quote, if a person never responses he might need help from other's prayer. Through the other's intercessions, God can grant him many other opportunities where he can response. God will not violate man's free will and won't force him to response. If a man won't response God can't immediately touches and directly moves the heart of man.
You are saying

Does this mean that God preconditions His aid for sinners on other
people's prayers?

Yes and no. First of all, God gives enough and sufficient opportunities to every man for his conversation. If a person runs out and fails to answer God's calling then other's prayers and sacrifices can bring more and new opportunities.


Is there any historical evidence that Gnosticism disappeared because Gnostics converted to Christianity? In his article "Mysticism in the Early Church, in The American Journal of Theology, Aurther C McGiffert says,

  Closely connected with Paul, John, and Ignatius are the Gnosics, the most famous heretics and the ablest thinkers of the second century who represent the later Platonic tendency in philosophy. Gnostics, like all the later Platonists, were dualists, primarily interested in the redemption of the spirit of man from his material environment; and they became Christians because they were convinced that in Christianity were to be found as nowhere else the means of such redemption. Christ, they believed, in revealing God to man, had placed redemption within the grasp of those capable of receiving and understanding his message, and through the knowledge imparted by him he had brought about a union with God, which means ultimately a complete and permanent break with the flesh and the world and an eternal life in the spiritual realm.

Is there any historical evidence that Gnosticism disappeared because Gnostics converted to Christianity?

The Gnostics were already in decline numerically by the third century, but  events brought about the elimination of Gnostic Christianity over  the centuries that followed.

Emperor Constantine
Elaine Pagels says,in Beyond Belief, page 168, that Constantine ordered the return or restitution of property confiscated from the Christian church during the persecutions during the decades leading up to his reign. However, his edict only applied to "to the largest and best organised Christian group" and Constantine excluded the Gnostics. By this means, Gnostics were starved of resources and treated as outside the law. Stephan A. Hoeller says, in Gnosticism, page 156, that With the triumph of orthodox Christianity after Constantine, the Gnostic religion went underground. Hoeller goes on:

  The final blow to early Gnostic Christianity came in the late fourth century, when the wave of fierce persecution burst upon the followers of the Spanish bishop Priscillian of Avila, despite the pleadings of charitable orthodox Christians. From this time on, the ceaseless hunt for Gnostics made it difficult for the Gnosis to survive in western Europe.

Eastern Europe
Richard Smoley says, in Forbidden Faith, pages 69-70, a new sect known as the Bogomils arose in the Balkans, probably as descendants of the Paulicians whom the Byzantine emperor Constantine V had resettled there in 759 CE, hoping they would convert to orthodox Christianity. The Bogomils were driven westward to Dalmatia and Bosnia, where they remained, although persecuted by the dominant Christians, until the fifteenth century. With the arrival of the Ottoman Turks,   many Bogomils converted to Islam, which Smoley says "helps explain why so many Bosnians are Muslims to this day, and why the religious conflicts in the area are still so grievous." The Turks sought to ease the administrative burden by having all Christians in their newly acquired European territories subordinated to the Orthodox Patriarch, but the Bogomils had suffered centuries of persecution by the Orthodox Christians and preferred to be Muslims than subordinated to the hated Patriarch.

Catherism
The Cathars of southern France and Spain had spread through Germany from eastern Europe during the twelfth century.  Smoley (ibid, page 76) says "The number of Catholic priests and monks who were won over to Catharism appears to have been significant."

Pope Innocent III urged the French nobility to suppress the faith, but many nobles refused. Finally, in 1208, Innocent initiated a crusade against the Cathars. The crusade was not enough to stamp out Catharism, even with large numbers of the leaders being burnt at the stake.  Finally, after total military defeat, the Cathar people were forced to demonstrate allegiance to the Catholic Church. An Inquisition was set up, to identify and, if necessary, torture and condemn people found to be practising their old faith in secret.

Conclusion
The historical evidence is that some Gnostics converted to Catholic or Orthodox Christianity, often out of necessity, while others accepted Islam rather than join those who had long persecuted their ancestors.


How did Jethro know Moses's God? Jethro appeared to be a friendly guy to Moses, and even appeared to agree with what Moses believed in, especially in theological terms (i.e. worshipping Yahweh).

If that's the case, then how did Jethro know Yahweh, an Israelite God? How was he already an established priest of Yahweh, even though he didn't go to Egypt and interact with the enslaved Israelites etc.?

According to ancient tradition, Moses wrote down the book of Job. Clues in the text suggest that Job lived after Abraham and before Moses. These clues include genealogical references and place names.

The text of Job uses these names for God: El, Eloah and Elohim.

The theology of Job:

is monothesitic
denies the divinity of Sun, Moon and Stars
speaks of God creating all things
speaks of the flood of Noah
looks forward to a redeemer who would save people from death and perfect them

Given that Moses grew up in Egypt in the royal court where pantheism was practiced, it is unlikely that he became acquainted with Job there. The most likely source for Moses to learn about Job is from Jethro, since:

Midian is not far from the lands where Job's friends and Elihu came from.
the title "Priest of Midian" might actually mean religious functionary and not just local tribal elder or leader

Given that Job's friends were also monotheistic, it seems that such views were more widespread than some think. Rather than monotheism being a late development in religion, it may have been the original religion, which polytheism displaced as it spread like a cancer.


Are there any Catholic directives (rubrics) from the 17th to 19th century about what to do/pray/think during Eucharist Adoration? Are there any Catholic directives (some kind of manual or rubrics) from the 17th to 19th century about what to do/pray/think during Eucharist Adoration?

The Saint-Pierre de Solesmes Benedictine abbey—founded by Dom Guéranger, O.S.B., who reestablished, in the 19th century, the Benedictine order and Gregorian chant in France after its destruction by the French Revolution—published a Cantus Selecti ad Benedictionem SS.mi Sacramenti (1957) whose 7th and 8th chapters are entitled Ante Benedictionem and Post Benedictionem, respectively. Most pre-Vatican II missals (such as this one) have a section with benediction prayers and hymns, too.


What is the biblical basis for elder disqualification? The Bible speaks to the qualifications of overseers and deacons, and also mentions that they are to be held to a higher standard than the rest of the congregation.

What Biblical basis exists, then, for the disqualification of those who are called to shepherd? Specifically, how to these align with the Biblical doctrines of repentance and forgiveness (if, say, a leader was repentant and sought forgiveness over a sin)?

I think that you are confused about the purpose of the deacon or bishop ordination. They are not ordained for their own benefit, but for the benefit of all the church. Therefore it is important that they are not a reason for scandal and offence.

The fact that someone isn't found fit to be ordained as deacon, presbyter or bishop doesn't mean that he can't repent, is unforgiven etc.


Distinction between Created Son and Begotten Son for Jehovah's Witnesses In the New Testament, the Greek word monogenēs (μονογενής) appears 9 times and is translated as only or only begotten every time.  4 times it is used to describe the solitary physical descendant of a human being (Luke 7:12, 8:42, 9:38, and Hebrews 11:17).  The other 5 times it is used to describe Jesus as the only begotten Son of God (John 1:14, 1:18, 3:16, 3:18, and 1 John 4:9).  The emphasis appears consistent each time:  That which is begotten is of the same nature as that which begat it.

In Luke's Gospel (3:38) the lineage of Jesus is traced back to Adam, the Son of God.  Since we know from Genesis that Adam was formed by God from the dust of the Earth and that Adam was of a different nature than God who formed him, and since there does not appear to be any record in Scripture of a begotten child that is different in nature from it's begetting parent, we have what appears to be a critical distinction between a begotten son and a created son.

  “We don't use the words begetting or begotten much in modern English,
  but everyone still knows what they mean. To beget is to become the
  father of: to create is to make. And the difference is this. When you
  beget, you beget something of the same kind as yourself. A man begets
  human babies, a beaver begets little beavers and a bird begets eggs
  which turn into little birds. But when you make, you make something of
  a different kind from yourself. A bird makes a nest, a beaver builds a
  dam, a man makes a wireless set – or he may make something more like
  himself than a wireless set: say, a statue. If he is a clever enough
  carver he may make a statue which is very like man indeed. But, of
  course, it is not a real man; it only looks like one. It cannot
  breathe or think. It is not alive.

  Now that is the first thing to get clear. What God begets is God; just
  as what man begets is man. What God creates is not God; just as what
  man makes is not man. That is why men are not Son's of God in the
  sense that Christ is. They may be like God in certain ways, but they
  are not things of the same kind. They are more like statues or
  pictures of God.” - C.S. Lewis (Mere Christianity)

Begetting is the father's role.  A child is born of it's mother and begotten of it's father.  Both impart the essential nature of it's parent.  In this way Jesus was human being (through Mary the mother) and Divine being (through God the Father).  Unlike an elephant and an ostrich, which cannot produce offspring because the essential natures are incompatible, humanity (Mary) and Spirit (God) are compatible.  If the son of God was created by God then he certainly was not Divine, but if he was begotten of God then he certainly was.

My question is:  Do Jehovah's Witnesses recognize this distinction between the only begotten Son of God and a created son? If not, how do they explain the consistent use of the term and, if so, how can they then affirm that Jesus was God's first creation since he is so clearly portrayed as begotten not made which then makes him of the same nature as God?

Yes Jehovah’s Witnesses distinguish between Jesus’ unique one of a kind preeminent status and all other sons of God both heavenly and earthly.

  The Greek word mo·no·ge·nesʹ is defined by lexicographers as “single of its kind, only,” or “the only member of a kin or kind.” (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 1889, p. 417; Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford, 1968, p. 1144)

Only begotten Son of God only applies to the one of a kind unique Jesus Christ the only entity created with no agency or instrumentality by Jehovah alone.
 All other created Sons of God, angelic and human, are Jehovah’s creation made through this unique,one of a kind, only begotten Son of the eternally existing Creator Jehovah.

This puts Jesus in a class by himself. That fits very well with the description (monongenes)

The created  “Sons of God” both angelic and human share a commonality, namely they came into existence through the only begotten Jesus. They thus are not one of a kind, or unique (monongenes).

Your contention that Jesus cannot be both created (ktiʹzo) and begotten (monongenes) is not accurate in our exegesis since the distinction is made between the one and only (monongenes) entity brought into existence (kti’zo) solely by the Eternally existing Creator Jehovah and the entirety of all other beings created by Jehovah through Jesus and for Jesus. Col 1:16

Now on the claim that monongenes also incorporates the idea of same substance or same nature I am not familiar with that concept. I am aware that the Greek word homoousia came onto the scene at the behest of Constantine during his efforts to unify his Christian subjects. It is not a biblical Greek term but has philosophical Greek roots.

Jehovah’s Witnesses obviously disagree with the idea that Jesus is eternal like his father. That is out of sync with a claim of same nature or substance I think. He is not Almighty God as is his Father. He is not the Creator Jehovah is.

A comprehensive collection of JW beliefs in regard to the trinity doctrine can be found in this brochure

JW take on the phrase “only-begotten” and related items can be found here.

And a similar writing on “creation” can be found here


How are teachers culpable for scandal? The Catechism of the Catholic Church refers to these people who are guilty of scandal

Teachers who provoke their children to anger
CCC - 2286

Is that teachers who are just being mean to their children (I would think that would be malice or some other sin, not scandal) or teachers who are provoking their children into becoming angry activists?

Reminiscent of

Ephesians 6:4And you, fathers, provoke not your children to anger: but bring them up in the discipline and correction of the Lord.

St. Thomas's commentaryWhen he says And you, fathers, provoke not your children to anger, it is not that the fathers must give in to their will in all matters. Here it must be noted that the authority of a father with respect to his child is different from that of a master with respect to his servant. For the master employs his servant to his own advantage, but the father manages his child for the child’s advantage. It is necessary that fathers educate their children for the children’s own good; not, however, by excessively restricting or subjecting them.

and

Colossians 3:21Fathers, provoke not your children to indignation, lest they be discouraged.

St. Thomas's commentary on Colossians for this verse is similar to his Ephesians one above.


How many stalls for horses and chariots did Solomon have? In 2 Chronicles we read:

  ... Solomon had 4,000 stalls for horses and chariots and 12,000 horsemen ...- 2 Chronicles 9:25

... but in 1 Kings:

  Solomon had 40,000 stalls of horses for his chariots, and 12,000 horsemen. - 1 Kings 4:26

Answering how many there actually were isn't going to be possible here because there is a definite conflict between the verses, and the honest answer is "nobody's sure".  And opinion answers don't count here.  Since your question is a valid one asked quite often, I hope you'll indulge me and let me answer something slightly different that still gets at the heart of your question.

A fair and on-topic question would be "How do Apologists address/resolve this discrepancy?"  I'd like to answer that, since it is answerable.  If that's not what you're looking for, and you really want an answer to how many horses there are, the answer is "we're not sure" and you can stop reading there.  If you want to know how we can read those verses and not scream "The Bible isn't inerrant!!!" read on.

As covered in Rules behind resolving alleged Biblical discrepancies the field of Apologetics hinges on avoidance of logical fallacies in explanations, and sticks to standard Christian doctrines including Biblical inerrancy, infallibility, and inspiration.

Most Apologetics experts that I'm aware of subscribe to the definition of inerrancy covered at From a Fundamentalist standpoint, what does the phrase “Inspired, infallible, inerrant Word of God” mean?  This is important to define, in order to avoid straw-man arguments.  Short version: The original manuscripts are believed to be inerrant, not the translations. Many translations have had known errors.  copyist errors are well-documented and expected.  Yet, for doctrinal purposes, we have enough manuscripts to know that there aren't any critical doctrinal issues affected by such errors.

With that out of the way, one answer is already obvious.  This could easily be a copyist error.  That's acceptable within the bounds outlined above. The number of horses certainly doesn't affect central doctrines.

The second possibility is that these are two different counts.  Solomon certainly gained enormous wealth during his reign.  The number of horses and horsemen certainly grew, so it it possible that one cont is from early in his reign and another is later in his reign.

Personally, I subscribe to the copyist error, but either way, this discrepancy doesn't pose a problem, either for the doctrine of inerrancy, nor does it have any other theological importance.

I did some searching, and a very similar error can be found at CARM:

Excerpt:

  There are two possible explanations for this discrepancy. 1) A copyist
  error. 2) The difference is due to time; that is, one account is at
  the beginning of Solomon's reign (1 Kings 4:26), and the other at the
  end (2 Chron. 9:25). I believe the most probable is a copyist error
  since we can see that Chronicles does have copyist errors in other
  areas. Therefore, it is probable that the same thing occurred here.


How does the Catholic Church explain their belief that Jesus chose Peter to build upon? Jesus was God and knew well the character and faults of Peter his disciple. The gospels give us a look at his impetuosity, asking Jesus 'if it is you, tell me to walk on the water';  arrogance, wanting to call fire down from heaven; cowardice, denying the Lord; etc.

Since there are alternate explanations and meanings for Matthew 16:18 (most non-Catholic Christians think the 'rock' Jesus built His church on is Jesus Himself, or the revelation of who Jesus is, that the Father gave to Peter) why does the Catholic Church adhere to their point of view, calling Peter the foundation that Jesus built his church on? Why would Jesus himself not be the Rock?

Jesus was God and knew well the character and faults of Peter his disciple. The gospels give us a look at his impetuosity-asking Jesus 'if it is you, tell me to walk on the water', arrogance - wanting to call fire down from heaven, cowardice- denying the Lord, etc.

None of the twelve apostles were perfect. One doubted, one betrayed, one denied and all of them deserted him in the time when he most needed them. These men are far from perfect. Yet, in spite of themselves, God used them powerfully to change the known world in a single generation.

Since there are alternate explanations and meanings for Mathew 16:18

I don't know what alternative point of view you are talking about. But As far as I know, Jesus changed his name to Cephas (Yes, Cephas - as in Galatians 2:7-14, I Cor. 1:11-13, I Cor. 3:21, I Cor. 9:5 and I Cor. 15:5 meaning Rock not a pebble) has no other reasonable explanation. (Unlike James and John - the sons of thunder - , Cephas is not a name that denotes Peter's Character).

Peter seems unlikely as a foundation for the whole church .... Peter is not only unlikely from his character flaws that we see revealed in the gospels.

But the Lord said to Samuel, “Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.” (1 Samuel 16:7)

But there could be many reasons why Jesus Chose Peter.

Peter had a natural leadership skills (John 21:3)
He was the first to act (John 20:6, John 21:7)
He loved the Lord so much. (John 21:17)

...but any human person seems unlikely as a suitable foundation for the whole church of Jesus on the earth... why does the Catholic Church adhere to this point of view? What is the reason that the CC adheres to this idea that Peter could be the foundation for the whole church of Jesus?

Probably because Jesus himself said that he will built his Church on him and even went on to change his name as a proof of it. In the Bible, name of a person is changed by God when they are called to lead a significant role. (Like Abram-Abraham/Jacob-Israel) If Peter was just one of the twelve, this event is an anomaly.

Also all thru the New Testament, Peter's Primacy is shown in hidden symbols. Like for example,

In Gospels

Peter's name appears first in every list of the twelve. Mathew even says he was the first (Mat 10:2)
When evangelists mention the apostles, Peter is unusually singled out (Mark 1:36, Mark 16:7, Luke 9:32)
Peter is approached by the temple authorities as a representative of the Group. (Mt 17:24-27 - Note this is the only place in the NT where Jesus refers himself in equal level with another human being. Jesus says '(Pay the tax for) me and for yourself')
Peter often spoke to Jesus on behalf of the twelve. (Mk 8:29; Lk 12:41; Jn 6:66-69)
At the Last supper, Even though Satan has asked to sift all of them, Jesus says he prayed for Peter specifically and asks him to strengthen others after regaining his own faith (Lk 22:31-32)
John waited for peter to enter into the tomb. (John 20:6)
Among the Apostles the resurrected Lord appeared first to Peter. (Luke 24:34; 1 Cor 15:5)
Jesus made promises to Peter that he had not made to other Apostles. (Mt 16: 18-19; Rock/Keeper of Keys of Kingdom)
Peter alone was given in charge to be the head shepherd (Jn 21:15-17)

In Acts

Peter initiated and oversaw the replacement of Judas (Acts 1:15-26; Note that this happened before the decent of the Holy Spirit, i.e., he is acting on his own authority, given to him by Jesus)
Peter delivered the inaugural sermon of Church History (Acts 2:14-36; First to preached and administered Baptism to the chosen people after resurrection)
Peter was the first to preach and administered Baptism to the Gentiles (Acts 10:1-48)
Peter performed the first healing after the resurrection. (Acts 3:1-10)
Peter was the first to discipline (Acts 5: 1-11)
Peter was the final authority in the first council of Jerusalem (Acts 15: 6-11)

In New testament

Of all the twelve apostles Peter is mentioned more times than all other apostles put together. (Peter - 195 times; Other Apostles 130 times)

No other apostles has this unique mission of leading the Apostles/early Church as evident in the Bible.

[P.S: Also in your previous version of your question, you seem to confuse cornerstone with foundation rock. Corner stone is placed on Foundation rock to built upon. Both are different.]


Is there a term used by transgender Christians who don't want to transition because of their faith? I know that some gay/same-sex attracted Christians who choose to follow traditional church teaching and pursue celibacy call themselves "side B" or "gay celibate" Christians.

Is there a corresponding term used by transgender Christians who, despite a desire to, believe that Christian teaching means they should not transition but should live as their assigned gender at birth?

Gender wiki uses the term non-op for persons who identify as other than birth assignment gender but do not wish to transition.

  Non-op refers to those who do not wish to have gender confirmation surgery. Some non-op may wish to socially transition and/or take hormones, while others may not wish to transition at all.

There can be a number of reasons why a non-op chooses not to transition at all.

When the reason for resisting a desire to transition is because of deeply held Christian beliefs it would be appropriate to say the person is non-op for faith based reasons.

I could find no single word terminology that expresses all of that.


What prominent scholars and/or denominations hold to Matthean priority? This question discusses the differences between Marcan priority and Matthean priority and asks about the arguments in favor of Matthean priority. My question is who holds and promotes this view. I heard the claim made that there are only a few scholars who hold to this view and that Marcan priority is almost undisputed.

Is it true that the overwhelming majority of Christian and secular scholars hold to Marcan priority? Who are the major voices on the side of Matthean priority? Is there a reliable indication of what proportion of the scholarly community holds to Matthean priority or disputes Marcan priority?

I'll also accept a well-sourced answer confirming the claim that Marcan priority is all but undisputed.

"Matthaean priority" comes in two primary forms: the Augustinian hypothesis and the two-gospel hypothesis.  Both hold that Matthew came first, but differ on which synoptic gospel came next (Mark in the Augustinian hypothesis; Luke in the two-gospel).  They are minority views in NT scholarship, but some respected scholars have argued for them in recent years.  Among them are:

Bernard Orchard (Roman Catholic)

The Order of the Synoptics with Harold Riley (1987)

John Wenham (Anglican)

Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke (1992)

F. David Farnell (evangelical Protestant)

"The Synoptic Gospels in the Ancient Church" (1999)

In previous generations, scholars like Johann Jakob Griesbach, John Chapman, Christopher Butler, and William Farmer held similar views.  Of course, so did many in the early church, but that's another story.

As for the relative popularity of these views as compared to Marcan priority, Christopher Tuckett's article "The Current State of the Synoptic Problem" (2008) may shed some light.  He describes the dominant solution to the Synoptic problem (the two-source hypothesis, which defends Marcan priority) and identifies several trends:

"There is widespread (but by no means universal) acceptance" of Marcan Priority (page 1)
In the early and mid-20th century, confidence in Marcan priority was extremely high, but this has ebbed somewhat in the last 30–40 years (10)
Of the two main rivals to the dominant two-source theory (and its Marcan priority), one of them (the two-gospel hypothesis of Griesbach) advocates Matthaean priority (4, 13)
Prominent advocates of the two-gospel hypothesis have claimed that the dominance of the two-source theory / Marcan priority is at least partially due to theological reasons (i.e., that belief in two-source theory / Marcan priority facilitates questioning the historicity of the Jesus tradition) (15)

That said, many believers in the inspiration and inerrancy of scripture (B. B. Warfield, Geerhardus Vos, A. T. Robertson, etc.) have supported the two-source hypothesis, so there isn't a clear dividing line on this issue between defenders of historicity and those opposed to it.

All told, we can safely conclude that Marcan priority is clearly dominant – Tuckett tells us that two of the top three schemes for solving the Synoptic problem rely on it.  But moreso today than 40–50 years ago, scholars acknowledge weaknesses in the dominant theories, and are generally less inclined to dismiss Matthaean priority out of hand.


What is the biblical basis for dual-covenant theology? Dual-covenant theology, or two-covenant theology, holds that there are two covenants in effect—one, the Old Covenant (with the Mosaic Law) applying to Jews, and the second, the New Covenant (through Jesus), applying only to Gentiles.

I've heard some dismiss this doctrine as a politically correct attempt to make Christianity "less antisemitic."  But among its proponents, what are the biblical arguments made on its behalf?

I'd like to see arguments from both Old and New Testaments, if possible.  If there are arguments that rely on translating particular verses differently than what is traditional, those would be great to include as well.

Since your question focuses on dual covenant theology's biblical basis, I will cite the main points and verses and leave you to research the major proponents' more complex arguments in their writings at your leisure:

After the Great Flood, God imposed a set of laws on Noah and his family and their descendants (Genesis 9:3-10), which makes them binding on all of humanity alive today (known as the "Noahide Code" or the "Noahide Laws"). These are the baseline requirements of behavior for all people.
God made a covenant with Abraham and his descendants through Isaac, i.e. the Israelite/Jewish nation (Genesis 17:4-14, 19). This covenant was promised by God to last forever (v.7).
One major legal component of this covenant was that Abraham and his male progeny be circumcised (vv.10-14). God said that Abraham had obeyed "My commandments, My statutes and My laws" (26:5) under this covenant.
The Abrahamic Covenant was refined in greater detail at Mt. Sinai. A major component of the Covenant was the Mosaic Law (Exodus 19-24). The people accepted to obey the whole Law by saying "we will hear and we will obey" (24:7). Later, under Ezra, they communally reaffirmed their faithfulness to the Law (Nehemiah 9-10).
God promised that the Mosaic Law would remain in force forever (Exodus 27:21, 28:43, 29:28, 30:21, 31:17; Leviticus 6:18, 22; 7:34, 36; 10:9, 15; 17:7; 23:14, 21, 41; 24:3; Numbers 10:8; 15:15; 18:8, 11, 19, 23; 19:10; Deuteronomy 5:29; Psalm 119:160, etc), and is "perfect" (Psalm 19:7).
God said that any "prophet" who tells Israelites/Jews to stop obeying the Mosaic Law is a false prophet (Deuteronomy 13:1-6, 18).
God said that the elements of the Mosaic Law will not be changed even a little (Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32, 13:1). This was supported by Jesus, who said that "neither a jot nor a tittle" (i.e. the letter yud or the calligraphic elaboration of a yud) will pass from the Mosaic Law until "all is fulfilled" (Matthew 5:17-19; Luke 16:17). This fulfilment he speaks of has not yet occurred, since the messianic age has not yet arrived, and we are still living in an unredeemed world.
God and the prophets said that the the Israelites/Jews were capable of completely obeying the Mosaic Law properly (Deuteronomy 30:9-14; Psalm 119; Luke 10:25-38; Matthew 19:16-20).
God said that the "New Covenant" will involve "My Law" (torati) being placed inside people and written on their hearts, implying that they will fully internalize the Mosaic Law and obey it fully and properly (Jeremiah 31:33-34).
God promised that as long as the celestial bodies remain in place, Israel will remain a distinct nation (Jeremiah 31:35-37), not be absorbed and undifferentiated into a larger non-Jewish religious movement.
Jesus was only focused on delivering his message to "the house of Israel", not to Gentiles (Matthew 10:6; 15:24), even referring to them as "dogs" on one occasion (15:26-27). Jesus never told his (Jewish) followers that they no longer had to obey the Mosaic Law, he gave the Law a different interpretation from the scribes and Pharisees (e.g., grinding wheat in one's hands is not a Sabbath day violation, 12:1-5; miraculously healing the sick is not a violation of the Sabbath day, 12:9-13; eating with unwashed hands is not a violation of the kosher laws, 15:2, 20=Mark 7:2, 5, 18, etc).
"Nobody comes to the Father" except through Jesus (John 14:6), but Jews don't need to "come" to God because they're already with him, and have been since Abraham's time (e.g., Genesis 28:15; Exodus 33:14; Joshua 1:9; Jeremiah 29:13; Psalm 41:12; Zephaniah 3:17).
When Jesus gave the Great Commission in Matthew 28, he told his followers to spread the Gospel to "all nations". "The nations" (in Hebrew ha-goyim) is a common idiom referring to the non-Jewish world. E.g., Isaiah 9:1 which speaks of "Galilee of the nations" (Galil ha-goyim), is translated in the LXX and Gospels as "Galilee of the Gentiles" (Matthew 4:15). So Matthew 28:19 can be translated as 'go therefore and make disciples of the entire Gentile world, baptizing them ...' (=Luke 24:47, 'should be proclaimed in his name to the whole Gentile world, beginning from Jerusalem...'), not the Jewish people.
At the Jerusalem Council, James ruled that non-Jewish members of the Christian community would not be required to convert to Judaism and become bound by the Mosaic Law ("judaizing"). Instead, they were only required to follow the Noachide Laws that were already binding on all humanity (Acts 15:5, 19-21, 21:25). (Note that the exact number and content of the Noahide Laws were a matter of debate within the Jewish community for many centuries, with different groups having different lists and interpretations. So it's not unusual that James and the Council would have their own unique version.)
The Jerusalem Council, which was the authoritative leadership of the Jewish-Christian communities (Acts 15, 21:18; Galatians 2:9, 12), never authorized the reverse, "gentilizing" i.e. that Jews/Jewish-Christians can or must abandon any aspect of the Mosaic Law (Acts 21:20-21). (Levine refers to this as the "two-track method" of James, see book below).
Peter's vision where a voice tells him to "kill and eat" "unclean creatures" (Acts 10:10-16) is not related to kosher food laws - Peter himself interprets his vision as meaning "I should call no man unholy or unclean" (v.28), not food.
Paul was the "apostle to the Gentiles" (Galatians 1:15-16, 2:8; Romans 11:13; 1 Timothy 2:7), and so the authoritative leader of the Gentile-Christian communities. His letters were written to Gentiles only: e.g., the Galatians, the Corinthians, the Ephesians, the Romans, etc, not to Jews, and so have no bearing on what Jews/Jewish-Christians must to do/believe. One example of this is his detailed discussions about whether believers should eat meat from the marketplace (i.e. had most likely been sacrificed to idols before being sold in the agora) (1 Corinthians 8, 10); this is only relevant to Gentiles, since the Jewish community in every city had their own meat slaughtering facilities and markets in line with the Mosaic Law, and so this was never a problem for them.
While Paul strongly objected many times to Gentile-Christians "judaizing" (most prominently, by becoming circumcised) (e.g., Galatians 3), he does not state that Jews/Jewish-Christians must "gentilize". In fact, he acted in the reverse, circumcizing Timothy (whose mother was Jewish, making him a Jewish-Christian) (Acts 16:3) but not Titus, a Greek (Galatians 2:3), and paying for and joining a group of (Jewish) nazirites performing vows at the Temple (Acts 21:23-26), as the Jerusalem Council enjoined (v.23).
When Paul wrote, "there is no Jew or Greek, no slave or free, no male or female, for all are one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28), he was referring to the equality of all believers who are mystically one body, but this oneness does not erase the distinct social and religious roles of different people: e.g., women must still submit to men (1 Timothy 2:12; 1 Corinthians 14:34) and cover their heads (11:6), slaves must still submit to their masters (even if both are Christians) (Colossians 3:22; Ephesians 6:5; Philemon). Ergo, Jews are still required to obey the Mosaic Law while Gentiles are still only required to obey the Noahide Laws.
In Revelation, John of Patmos describes the great dragon making war on the rest of the "woman's" offspring, those who "keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus" (12:17). In Hebrew, the phrase "commandments of God" (mitzvot Elohim) invariably refers to the entirety of the Mosaic Law. In addition, the "mark" of the Beasts (13:16) appears to be a demonic parody of the wearing of phylacteries (tefillin) worn by Jews on the head and hand in obedience to Deuteronomy 6:8 and 11:18. This implies that the Jewish-Christians were still keeping (and John expected them to continue keeping) the Mosaic Law.
Paul cites the example of Abraham, who "believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness" (Genesis 15:6) as a Pentateuchal basis for salvation by faith/grace (Romans 4:3). But there is a second major method of "righteousness" (tzedekah) mentioned in the Pentateuch, when Moses tells the children of Israel that "this shall be our righteousness: to be careful to do all this commanded before the LORD our God, as he has commanded us" (Deuteronomy 6:25), i.e. obeying the Mosaic Law. Abraham availed himself of this second method in addition to the first (Genesis 26:5).

For more information, I recommend you read "The Rapprochement Between Jews and Christians" by Reinhold Niebuhr, "The Star of Redemption" by Franz Rosenzweig, "Jesus the Pharisee" by Harvey Falk, and "The Misunderstood Jew" by Amy-Jill Levine. Pope John Paul II stated agreement with some of the above tenets. Some other writers you may find useful to check out are: David Stern, Stan Telchin, Maimonides, Jacob Emden, Samson Raphael Hirsch, Moses Mendelssohn, Sir James Parkes, James Trimm, William Campbell, and Mark Nanos. Happy researching!


How do Catholics reconcile the Immaculate Conception with Romans 3:23? How do Catholics reconcile the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception with what it says in Romans 3:23 about all having sinned and falling short of the glory of God?

Romans 3:23 NIV

  for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

Thanks!

In essence, the Catholic Church takes the position that Paul is not intending to attribute actual sin to every human being that has ever existed.

For the benefit of readers not familiar with the Catholic doctrine on sin, the Church distinguishes between actual sin (sometimes also called personal sin), which consists in concrete actions in which a person knowingly and deliberately contravenes God’s law, and original sin, which is not “sin” in the strict sense, but the privation of grace that all people (save the singular cases discussed below) suffer before their Baptism. (See Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] 405 and 1849.)

The broader context of 3:23 is as follows:

  But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God… (Rom. 3:21-23, ESV).

Although it is possible that Paul is referring to passages of the Old Testament (such as Ecclesiastes 7:20, as Marc points out), it is also clear that St. Paul is making the message his own. Nevertheless, in the context of Chapter 3, St. Paul is essentially refuting the idea that the People of Israel have a special advantage with respect to the Gentiles. It is true, argues Paul, that the Jews have the tremendous advantage of the Law and the Prophets, but it has not prevented them from sinning. Rather, he says, “all”—that is, both Jews and Gentiles—“have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”

It follows that Paul’s use of the qualifier “all” should not be taken to mean “every man, woman, or child that has ever existed,” but rather all human beings in general, and in particular, all human beings including the people of Israel.

Moreover, even just a simple logical analysis of St. Paul’s expression reveals that it cannot be ascribing actual sin to every human being. Clearly, Jesus Christ himself—who is fully man—did not commit any actual sins, and indeed was conceived free of original sin as well. (The union of his human nature to his Divine Nature according to his divine Person makes any kind of sin impossible in him.)

Even among mere creatures, there are many human beings who die without ever committing an actual sin: for example, those who die as young children, and those who have severe mental handicaps.

For all these reasons, it follows that when Paul asserts that “all have sinned” (πάντες γὰρ ἥμαρτον), the “all” (πάντες) is not meant to be applied exhaustively. There is, therefore, no reason that an individual human being could not receive a special grace that preserves him (or her) from original sin and its effects.

(Note that the Church holds that Mary, when she was alive on earth, was always capable of sinning—unlike Jesus Christ—but that she never actually did. Thanks to her preservation from original sin, she enjoyed the ability to avoid committing any actual sins—a possibility that the vast majority of us do not have. See CCC 490-493.)


Do all Christian sects believe that Paul's writings are words of God? In other words, do all Christian sects see Paul's writings as divinely inspired? And when I say "Paul's writings", I mean all of Paul's writings in the New Testament. Not just some of the writings. Are all of Paul's writings accepted by all sects (regardless of how they're interpreted)?

Pauline epistles:

Romans

1 Corinthians

2 Corinthians

Galatians

Ephesians

Philippians

Colossians

First Thessalonians

Second Thessalonians

Hebrews

First Timothy

Second Timothy

Titus

Philemon

There is at least one group of Christian sects that does not believe that Paul's writings are the divinely inspired Word of God: the various "New Church" or "Swedenborgian" denominations that accept the theology and Bible interpretations of Emanuel Swedenborg (1688–1772).

Swedenborg listed the books that he considers to be the Word of God in three places: Arcana Coelestia ("Secrets of Heaven") #10325, The New Jerusalem and its Heavenly Doctrine #266, and The White Horse #16. These lists do not include the Acts and the Epistles in the New Testament. For the full list, and Swedenborg's criteria for inclusion in his canon of Scripture, see this question and its accepted answer: What writings are held as "biblical canon" by Swedenborgians?

In a letter to Dr. Gabriel Beyer dated April 15, 1766, Swedenborg explained why he did not quote from Paul's letters in his first and largest published theological work, Arcana Coelestia, providing at the same time an explanation of why he did not consider them to be part of the Word of God:

  In respect to the writings of the apostles and Paul, I have not quoted them in Arcana Coelestia, because they are doctrinal writings, and consequently are not written in the style of the Word, like those of the prophets, of David, of the Evangelists, and the Book of Revelation. The style of the Word consists altogether of correspondences, wherefore it is effective of immediate communication with heaven; but in doctrinal writings there is a different style, which has indeed communication with heaven, but mediately. They were written thus by the apostles, that the new Christian Church might be commenced through them; wherefore matters of doctrine could not be written in the style of the Word, but they had to be expressed in such a manner, as to be understood more clearly and intimately. The writings of the apostles are, nevertheless, good books of the church, insisting upon the doctrine of charity and its faith as strongly as the Lord Himself has done in the Gospels and the Book of Revelation; as may be seen and found evident by every one who in reading them directs his attention to these points. ("Third Letter of Emanuel Swedenborg to Dr. Beyer," reproduced in English translation from the original Swedish in Documents Concerning Swedenborg, R.L. Tafel, Ed. London: Swedenborg Society, 1877, Volume II, Part I page 240.)

"Correspondences" refers to Swedenborg's doctrine of symbolic, metaphorical, and spiritual interpretation of the Scriptures. His view was that the books that are part of the Word of God have an inner meaning that speaks of the Lord (Jesus Christ), his kingdom, and the church (considered broadly as all people of faith who live a life of love toward the neighbor), which is the Lord's kingdom on earth.

As stated in his letter to Beyer quoted above, Swedenborg did not see the Acts and the Epistles, including the letters of Paul, as having that deeper spiritual and divine meaning. He saw them, rather, as historical and doctrinal writings intended to inform and instruct the nascent Christian Church. He therefore saw them as good books for the Christian Church, but not as the Word of God.

I am not aware of any other Christian sects that do not consider Paul's writings to be the divinely inspired Word of God. But see the related question (still unanswered as of now): Do any non-Swedenborgian Christian denominations have a smaller biblical canon than Protestantism?


Pre-Vatican II Latin Prayer I'm new here, I was just wondering of someone knows what books were used for English catechesis prior to the 1960's in English speaking countries. I'd like to teach my CCD kids a few prayers in Latin but am not well versed in the language.  I've got Cassel's Latin Dictionary, but I find that to be a little Virgil heavy and Vatican lite, so there's a lot of words that I don't know how to properly pronounce and I'm not interested at mastering the language, just rote memorization for something fun to do on Wednesday nights.

The standard book for catechesis before Vatican II in the United States was the Baltimore Catechism. It existed in several versions, some intended for younger children, some for older ones. The most complete version, intended for the teachers rather than the students, was a good reference for traditional Catholic doctrine in general.  (I'm not sure whether it underwent modifications in the wake of Vatican II.)

I don't know how old your CCD kids are, but if you want to teach them some Latin prayers, I'd suggest starting with the most basic ones.

The sign of the cross: In nomine Patris et Filii et Spriritus Sancti.

The Our Father: Pater noster, qui es in caelis, sanctificetur nomen tuum. Adveniat regnum tuum.  Fiat voluntas tua, sicut in caelo et in terra.  Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie.  Et dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris.  Et ne nos inducas in tentationem, sed libera nos a malo.

The Hail Mary: Ave Maria, gratia plena.  Dominus tecum.  Benedicta tu in mulieribus, et benedictus fructus ventris tui Jesu.  Sancta Maria, mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus, nunc et in hora mortis nostrae.

The Glory Be: Gloria Patri et Filio et Spiritui Sancto, sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper, et in saecula saeculorum.


Is there a biblical basis for Pescetarianism? Pescetarianism is the practice of following a diet that includes fish
  or other seafood, but not the flesh of other animals. (Wikipedia)

Any insights would be really helpful, thanks.

To specify, I'm asking from a Methodist point of view.

There is no real biblical basis for any kind of dietary restrictions on Christians. While pre-Christian Judaism had many dietary restrictions they were essentially all lifted by the events of Acts 10.

  Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.” “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.” The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”

There are references in Acts to commands to "refrain from eating of blood" but nothing else.

There is also no biblical basis against Christians choosing to impose dietary restrictions on themsselves.  The best biblical example here is the "food sacrificed to idols" passage in 1 Corinthians 8.

  Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.

In essence if somebody's conscience requires them to refrain from eating particular foods, that is good and to be respected - though not better than the person whose conscience permits them to partake. I would apply that principle whether the 'refraining' was for moral, health, or economic reasons.

There is nothing in the Bible that would condemn someone just because they voluntarily adopt a restricted diet. It might be a different matter if there were bad side-effects of that choice, for example if they adopted a very expensive diet and thus put themselves into unsustainable debt; or forced someone else to go to unreasonable trouble to accommodate their dietary choices.


Abraham, Moses and God's names In Exodus 6:2-3, why does God tell Moses that He is "the LORD" and that He did not make himself known to Abraham as "the LORD", but only as "God Almighty"? In Genesis 12, when God called Abraham to leave Er of the Chaldeans, it says "the Lord" called Abraham and in Genesis 13 it says that Abraham himself called on the name of the "the LORD".

Are the underlying Hebrew terms for "the Lord" in Genesis 12 different than in Exodus 6? I believe the various names of God refer to one God, are are intended to reveal different aspects of God, but I dont understand what's going on here in Exodus 6.

The NET Bible gives an extremely helpful study note for this passage. Note that when it says "Yahweh" it's referring to the name translated "the LORD" and when it says "El Shadday" it's referring to what we translate "God Almighty":

  There are a number of important issues that need clarification in the
  interpretation of this section.

  It is important to note that “I am Yahweh” is not a new revelation of a previously unknown name. It would be introduced differently if it
  were. This is the identification of the covenant God as the one
  calling Moses – that would be proof for the people that their God had
  called him.
  The title “El Shadday” is not a name, but a title. It is true that in the patriarchal accounts “El Shadday” is used six times; in Job it
  is used thirty times. Many conclude that it does reflect the idea of
  might or power. In some of those passages that reveal God as “El
  Shadday,” the name “Yahweh” was also used. But Wellhausen and other
  proponents of the earlier source critical analysis used Exod 6:3 to
  say that P, the so-called priestly source, was aware that the name
  “Yahweh” was not known by them, even though J, the supposed Yahwistic
  source, wrote using the name as part of his theology.
  The texts of Genesis show that Yahweh had appeared to the patriarchs (Gen 12:1, 17:1, 18:1, 26:2, 26:24, 26:12, 35:1, 48:3), and
  that he spoke to each one of them (Gen 12:7, 15:1, 26:2, 28:13, 31:3).
  The name “Yahweh” occurs 162 times in Genesis, 34 of those times on
  the lips of speakers in Genesis (W. C. Kaiser, Jr., “Exodus,” EBC
  2:340-41). They also made proclamation of Yahweh by name (4:26, 12:8),
  and they named places with the name (22:14). These passages should not
  be ignored or passed off as later interpretation.
  “Yahweh” is revealed as the God of power, the sovereign God, who was true to his word and could be believed. He would do as he said
  (Num 23:19; 14:35; Exod 12:25; 22:24; 24:14; 36:36; 37:14).
  There is a difference between promise and fulfillment in the way revelation is apprehended. The patriarchs were individuals who
  received the promises but without the fulfillment. The fulfillment
  could only come after the Israelites became a nation. Now, in Egypt,
  they are ready to become that promised nation. The two periods were
  not distinguished by not having and by having the name, but by two
  ways God revealed the significance of his name. “I am Yahweh” to the
  patriarchs indicated that he was the absolute, almighty, eternal God.
  The patriarchs were individuals sojourning in the land. God appeared
  to them in the significance of El Shadday. That was not his name. So
  Gen 17:1 says that “Yahweh appeared…and said, ‘I am El Shadday.’” See
  also Gen 35:11, 48:2, 28:3.
  The verb “to know” is never used to introduce a name which had never been known or experienced. The Niphal and Hiphil of the verb are
  used only to describe the recognition of the overtones or significance
  of the name (see Jer 16:21, Isa 52:6; Ps 83:17ff; 1 Kgs 8:41ff.
  [people will know his name when prayers are answered]). For someone to
  say that he knew Yahweh meant that Yahweh had been experienced or
  recognized (see Exod 33:6; 1 Kgs 18:36; Jer 28:9; and Ps 76:2).
  “Yahweh” is not one of God’s names – it is his only name. Other titles, like “El Shadday,” are not strictly names but means of
  revealing Yahweh. All the revelations to the patriarchs could not
  compare to this one, because God was now dealing with the nation. He
  would make his name known to them through his deeds (see Ezek 20:5).
  So now they will “know” the “name.” The verb יָדַע (yada’) means more
  than “aware of, be knowledgeable about”; it means “to experience” the
  reality of the revelation by that name. This harmonizes with the usage
  of שֵׁם (shem), “name,” which encompasses all the attributes and
  actions of God. It is not simply a reference to a title, but to the
  way that God revealed himself – God gave meaning to his name through
  his acts.

  God is not saying that he had not revealed a name to the patriarchs
  (that would have used the Hiphil of the verb). Rather, he is saying
  that the patriarchs did not experience what the name Yahweh actually
  meant, and they could not without seeing it fulfilled. When Moses came
  to the elders, he identified his call as from Yahweh, the God of the
  fathers – and they accepted him. They knew the name. But, when they
  were delivered from bondage, then they fully knew by experience what
  that name meant, for his promises were fulfilled. U. Cassuto
  (Exodus, 79) paraphrases it this way: “I revealed Myself to Abraham,
  Isaac, and Jacob in My aspect that finds expression in the name
  Shaddai…I was not known to them, that is, it was not given to them to
  recognize Me as One that fulfils his promises.” This generation was
  about to “know” the name that their ancestors knew and used, but never
  experienced with the fulfillment of the promises. This section of
  Exodus confirms this interpretation, because in it God promised to
  bring them out of Egypt and give them the promised land – then they
  would know that he is Yahweh (6:7). This meaning should have been
  evident from its repetition to the Egyptians throughout the plagues –
  that they might know Yahweh (e.g., 7:5). See further R. D. Wilson,
  “Yahweh [Jehovah] and Exodus 6:3,” Classical Evangelical Essays in
  Old Testament Interpretation, 29-40; L. A. Herrboth, “Exodus 6:3b:
  Was God Known to the Patriarchs as Jehovah?” CTM 4 (1931): 345-49;
  F. C. Smith, “Observation on the Use of the Names and Titles of God in
  Genesis,” EvQ 40 (1968): 103-9.

In summary, "the LORD" is God's only name and all other "names" are actually titles. The grammar in Exodus 6:3 doesn't imply that God had never told his name to the Hebrews before, but rather that they hadn't experienced the significance of the name. The Israelites were about to know God personally by seeing him fulfill his promises, whereas the patriarchs only knew him via the promises being made -- but they had in fact been told his name.


NT arguments against Feng-Shui There is a very good-hearted aunt, she is a Chinese and also a Christian, who is constantly persuading me to start following Feng-Shui (a Chinese system of geomancy). The time has come for my family to buy a new house - now she is trying to persuade me to follow this system of Feng-Shui even more in order to choose the most "fortunate" house. She even stared visiting some specialists of Feng-Shui (which to me are really not a far cry from fortune tellers) who consult her (of course not free of charge) on the matter as to where I should buy this new house.

The other day she really got me and I had a conflict with her. I told her, "Are you really a Christian? Don't you know that this is in fact a kind of abomination before the Lord?"

She confronted me with her kind of logical argument: "This system has already helped a lot of people. If it's good why should we not make use of something which is good? Don't you make use of visiting your dentist every half a year? Don't you make use of doing physical exercises every morning? So why not make use of something good here? And how can you be sure that this system is not from  God either? How can you be sure that this system is not allowed by God to exist and help humans?"

Today she even came up with some examples from the New Testament. First she cited the fact that the Apostles in the book of Acts used a technique in choosing Matthias which is very similar to that used in Feng-Shui (in fact it's a kind of divining using some objects like coins, turtle shells, etc.) She also  said that those magi that came to see baby Jesus were following the star, which is also very similar to Feng-Shui. She even said that since I exercise every morning, while Paul said that physical exercises is not so useful (1 Tim 1:8), which means that I am not really faithful toward the Bible in this regard, why not try something that proved to be good long before even the NT was written?

She kind of surprised me with these argument. I think some of those Feng-Shui experts gave her them, because I know that she hasn't yet completed reading the New Testament.

So, what places from the NT can I quote to her?

Hah!  She sounds like a wily one.  I'm no expert in Feng-Shui (or your Aunt), but here are some relevant Biblical principles:

Wisdom In Silence If a person is not truly interested in seeking/knowing the truth (e.g. a person who just wants to push their views on you), there is Biblical precedence for keeping silent.  (Proverbs 23:9, Matthew 27:12-14)

  "He who corrects a scoffer gets dishonor for himself,
  And he who reproves a wicked man gets insults for himself."  (Proverbs 9:7, NASB)

Test The Spirits God is the source of true knowledge.  (Proverbs 2:6)  There are many strange doctrines and spiritual "truths" out there, but we are instructed to test the spirits to see if they are from God.  (1 Timothy 4:1, 1 John 4:1)  If the founders of a particular doctrine are not men of God with good fruit in their lives, the doctrine becomes highly suspect.  (Luke 6:43-45, Galatians 5:22-23)

  "The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart."  (Luke 6:45, NASB)

Wisdom In Counsel Proverbs states that everyone thinks what they do is right, but that it is wise to seek counsel.  (Proverbs 21:2, 12:15, 14:12, 11:14, also Matthew 18:16)  Furthermore, God gave Pastors (a.k.a. Shepherds) to the church for a reason; a shepherd cares for and guides the sheep. (Ephesians 4:11, John 21:15-17)  Based on these passages, it seems wise to consult a Pastor (and other trustworthy believers) when making difficult decisions.
"Very Similar" The argument "x is very similar to y, and x is good, so y is good" is very flawed, Biblically speaking.  (Matthew 24:24)

  "No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light."  (2 Corinthians 11:14, NASB)

The "Appearance Of Wisdom" There are doctrines bases on the "elementary principles of the world", which have "the appearance of wisdom", but are of no value.  (Colossians 2:20-23, James 3:13-17)

  "But have nothing to do with worldly fables fit only for old women."  (from 1 Timothy 4:7, NASB)

Casting Lots  Using Acts 1:26 as a precedence for casting lots is not a sound argument, and is certainly not a common interpretation.  As El'endia mentioned above, this was prior to the Holy Spirit coming upon them, and many Old Testament practices were merely a shadow of what was to come.  (Acts 2:1-4, Colossians 2:17)
"Exercise = Unfaithful"  She is misquoting the passage.  The passage (below) is teaching us that godliness is more profitable than bodily discipline.  The focus is on priorities, not on exercise being sinful.  (1 Corinthians 9:27)

  "for bodily discipline is only of little profit, but godliness is profitable for all things, since it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come."  (1 Timothy 4:8, NASB)


Jesus and Mary / Joshua and Miriam One thing that is consistently odd, yet consistent among most English translations is that the name of the mother of Our Lord, Mary, and Our Lord Himself, Jesus, are translated that way (as well as the author of Sirach, Jesus ben Sirach) while the sister of Moses, Miriam, and his chief, Joshua, are translated that way.

Is there a subtle distinction between the two ways of saying the name or is it just an easier way of referring to characters in the Bible?  Do other languages have similar distinctions in their translations or is this an English only thing?

They are transliterated from two different languages: Hebrew and Greek.

מִרְיָם  -- Miriam
Μαρία -- Maria
יְהוֹשֻׁעַ -- Joshua
Ἰησοῦς -- Jesus

The transliterations make sense when compared to the original pronunciations.

Of course Mary and Jesus must actually have had Hebrew/Aramaic names instead of Greek ones. Quite probably their names actually were מִרְיָם and יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. However, they still are only mentioned with the Greek translated versions, so by transliterating from Μαρία and Ἰησοῦς the translators are keeping closest to the original.


Why do today's Christians never express any kind of criticism against other religions? I've been listening to local and far-away Christian radio stations for a long time.
What strikes me is that, not even once, have I heard them (any of them) say a single word that could in any way be interpreted as criticism in any manner against Jews, Muslims, etc.
If anything, they are very eager to speak about the "people of Israel", etc., in very positive wording, almost as if they were speaking about themselves. There seems to be no question to them whatsoever about the question whether Jesus was a Jew or not; as far as they are concerned, this is 100% established, and not a contradiction in any way.
Maybe there is some kind of Christian branch which does have such criticism, but if they exist, I have certainly never been able to find them. And I suspect that they must have a very small following/reach if such is the case.
But how can this be? One would assume that they would be talking about how the other religions are wrong and theirs is right, but... nope. I almost get the feeling that they actually consider themselves to be Jews, only with a slightly different view on some things.
Even just the fact that the Old Testament is the basis of Christianity (expanded with the New Testament) is very strange to me since it only talks about Jews and not Christians.
"Back in the day", I get the feeling that they had a quite different perspective. What has happened in recent decades?

My experience has not been similar to yours, in that I do hear church leaders criticise other religions. In addition, as a young man I don't know what things were like a few decades ago to compare it too. Nevertheless, I want to attempt to answer the question.
This article, from a prominent Evangelical source, discusses the way in which the author suggests Christians interact with other religions. While we could debate whether the author is correct, I would say this is a common view. The author generally tries to hold together two opposing views: a) belief in Jesus is the only way to salvation, and therefore we must criticise other religions, b) we must do so in a way that helps our cause, rather than hinders it.
The Apostle Paul says a similar thing in Collosians:

Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity. Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone. Collosians 4:5-6 (NIV)

Exactly what being wise and gracious means will depend on the circumstance, the people involved, and the nature of the society we live in. I suspect every Christian will have a different idea were that line is, and I've heard many say our modern (in particular, Western) Christianity are a bit too generous with this line.
However, I understand why a Christian radio station in particular would choose to avoid criticism of other religions. They have chosen to perform a particular role, and leave other functions up to the church. For comparison, consider the way this Stack Exchange runs. Two thoughts that immediately jump to mind:
Firstly, a public radio station needs to cater to a wide range of Christians. There are denomination here on Christianity.SE that I strongly disagree with, and feel ought to have their beliefs criticised - but I recognise this isn't the platform for doing so.
Secondly, a pubic radio station has no ability for personal discourse. If I disagree with the pastor of my church, I can go talk to him after the service (and on occasion have done!), and he can get to know my particular objection and life situation. A radio broadcast doesn't allow for this. Again, this SE has made similar decisions, albeit about a slightly different topic.
In conclusion, I would say that the reason some Christians publications choose not to openly criticise because:

They believe there is biblical precedent for being wise towards other religions
They believe in our current climate, "wise" means avoiding public, impersonal criticism
They have chosen to perform one specific function, and leave the rest of the church's responsibility to the church.

Whether one agrees with this logic, I would say that is the decision being made. I would hope that an individual church would recognise the need to expose the un-truths in other religions, and would seek to do so in a clear but wise manner.


Did anyone who was a part of the Counter reformation consider Luther to be the Antichrist? Were there any writings from the counter-reformation which had arguments in support of the idea that Martin Luther was a/the Antichrist? He seems to fit the bill. He initiated a great apostasy from the true faith which carries on to this day and led to an enduring culture of schism in Western Christianity, fuelled by his illogical Sola Scriptura doctrine. The "lawless one" and "the man of sin, the son of perdition" seem to apply nicely to him.

Did anyone from the counter reformation identify Luther as "the lawless one", "the man of sin", "the son of perdition" or "the antichrist"?

There was no significant attempt to portray Luther as the Antichrist.  For most of the Counter-Reformation, he was dead, and other Protestant leaders were appearing all over Europe, often disagreeing with Luther. Also Luther made no personal claims and was not directly powerful in Church or State.

Well before the Reformation the theory that a Pope, the Pope, or the Papacy was or might become the Antichrist was proposed in various times and places. Rival popes at Avignon and Rome accused each other of being the Antichrist; and Wycliffe,  on this if little else, agreed with them both. In the Reformation Era there was only one person or institution suspected of being the Antichrist.  If the Antichrist was not to be seen in the chair of St. Peter, then he was nowhere to be seen.

An analogy may help illustrate this. Suppose it was alleged that someone in Australia today was falsely pretending to be the Queen's representative and, in some sense, standing in her place, and that many believed this. If there really is such an impostor, who could it be?  The only feasible suspect is Sir Peter Cosgrove, the Governor General.

If challenged General Cosgrove would not deny making the claims, but would prove that, in fact, he really is the Queen's representative. In the same way the Counter Reformers claimed that the Pope really was the Vicar of Christ and not merely pretending to stand, in some sense, in place of God. In that case the Papacy was not the Antichrist.  On the other side, the belief that the Papacy was the Antichrist was generally accepted in Protestant countries for several centuries, and enshrined in many doctrinal standards. It was the opinion of Huss, Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, Knox, Wesley and others.

The Counter-Reformers disagreed, but who did they think was the Antichrist?  Two Jesuits studied all the associated prophecies both in the New Testament and in Daniel, and came up with differing conclusions. Luis de Alcazar argued all the prophecies had already been fulfilled in the early Christian centuries. Francisco Ribera, while agreeing some had, concluded most would be fulfilled in the last few years before Christ's Return. Ribera taught the Antichrist,  a very nasty man indeed, would base himself in Jerusalem. Ribera's Antichrist is the basis for the Antichrist of a certain genre of modern fiction,  but this was not the Reformer's understanding.

So no, Luther was not accused of being the Antichrist.  The Antichrist was either in the past or future, according to the Counter-Reformation.  Any false teacher however can be considered an antichrist so it is likely his oponents may have said that.


Does Christianity give a reason for life experiences, such as in Hinduism? In Hinduism, there is a concept of past life karma.

Meaning if someone is born into an unfortunate situation (in a slum, for example) it is because they are paying for sin from a past life.

Does Christianity or the Bible give any insight into why it seems like some people are here on vacation and others full of strife and sorrow (and everything in between)?

Also, did Jesus specifically address this (or did any of His disciples ask about this)?

It might be nice to believe that anyone who suffers must deserve it because of some evil thing he did, that everyone always gets exactly what he deserves, good or bad. But Christianity does not teach that.

As Asfallows and Thomas point out, in John 9 Jesus was specifically asked if a particular case of suffering was punishment for a person's sin, and he specifically said no.

This is not to say that suffering is never the result of sin. It often is. For example, Matthew 26:52

  "But Jesus said to him, 'Put your sword in its place, for all who take
  the sword will perish by the sword.'"

The Old Testament contains many warnings on the consequences of sin. Like Proberbs 10:27-29 "The fear of the Lord prolongs days, But the years of the wicked will be shortened. The hope of the righteous will be gladness,
But the expectation of the wicked will perish. he way of the Lord is strength for the upright, But destruction will come to the workers of iniquity."

Many people have the idea that the Bible says that at least there will be justice in eternity, that good people will be rewarded in Heaven and bad people will be punished in Hell. But again, this is not what the Bible says at all.

Ephesians 2:8-9

  "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of
  yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should
  boast."

Heaven is not a reward for good works, but is a gift that God freely gives to all who ask for it and accept Jesus Christ as savior. According to the Bible, people who have committed all sorts of sins will be forgiven for the asking: David was guilty of adultery and murder, Rahab was a prostitute, etc. The thief on the cross was saved in the last minutes of his life. He clearly had no chance to do anything to make up for his past sins.

God is not "fair". He is merciful. He doesn't give us what we deserve. He gives us something so much better.


When was the Biblical canon formalised? When was the Biblical canon formalised and finalised? 397, 419 or a different date?

Do different branches of Christianity state that the canon was formalised at different times?

Are there branches that have altered their canon in recent times?

This is tricky questions because there are some outliers, but I'll describe the broadly accepted tradition, excluding some smaller Christian groups.

As far as the New Testament, the 39th Festal Letter of Athanasius (AD 367) is the first complete list of the books broadly accepted in the New Testament by Christians (there are a few smaller groups who have slightly different lists). But there was wide agreement on most books well before this.

The Four Gospels were settled and virtually unquestioned very early on (see C. E. Hill Who Chose the Gospels?), and the main corpus of Paul, quite possibly selected by Paul himself, was also widely accepted early on. There were some stragglers like Hebrews, Revelation, and 2 Peter that didn't receive wide acceptance until later and a few that were on the edges of acceptance like 1 Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas, but the list had settled down by the time of Athanasius's letter.

Thus, conservative scholar Michael Kruger suggests there are three senses of "canonical":

Exclusive - books are explicitly agreed upon by all. A looser form of this would be "received by some important authority, whether an important bishop like Athanasius or a council"
Functional - books are functioning as canon for a group with or without reception by some authority
Ontological - books are in themselves canonical (normative for the life of the church), whether or not they are officially received

Most of the NT books were functioning as canon well before they were officially received. Kruger argues that there never was and still isn't an exclusive canon, but received, functional, and ontological are three useful lenses.

The generally received Old Testament canon has a little bit of extra flux concerning the Apocrypha, going back to the ancient Jews in Alexandria using it, having those books being appended to the Septuagint (ancient Greek translation of the OT), Jerome giving them the name Apocrypha in his preface to the books of Samuel and Kings, and the Council of Trent during the Reformation period declaring the books to be deuterocanonical (second canon) and the opposing Reformers saying the Apocrypha are useful to be read but not infallible or inspired. But otherwise, the OT is already set by the time of Jesus.


Why were some words omitted in Luke 18: 24 in Catholic editions of NT? We see different kinds of presentation of Luke 18: 23-24 concerning the rich man wanting to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. For instance we read ....

"  But when he heard this, he became sad; for he was very rich.  Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!" (NRSVCE)

"  When he heard this he became very sorrowful, for he was very rich. When Jesus saw that he became very sorrowful, He said, “How hard it is for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God!" ( Modern English Version)

I wish to know what the content of Verse 24  available in the original was, and why the words 'when Jesus saw that he became very sorrowful' were omitted in the NRSVCE .

The phrase is missing from some important Greek manuscripts, including the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus.

According to its introduction, the NRSV-CE is based on

the most recent edition of the Greek New Testament, prepared by an interconfessional and international committee and published by the United Bible Societies (1966; 3rd ed. corrected, 1983; information concerning changes to be introduced into the critical apparatus of the forthcoming 4th edition was available to the Committee).

The UBS3 text is equivalent to the Nestle-Aland 26th edition "Critical Text".  This Greek text reads, for Luke 18:24:

Ἰδὼν δὲ αὐτὸν ὁ Ἰησοῦς [περίλυπον γενόμενον] εἶπεν, Πῶς δυσκόλως οἱ τὰ χρήματα ἔχοντες εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ εἰσπορεύονται·

As you can see, the phrase corresponding to became sorrowful - περίλυπον γενόμενον - is enclosed in square brackets.  Metzger's Textual Commentary explains here:

On the one hand, the excellent attestation for the shorter text (א B L f 1 1241 al) and the variety of positions of περίλυπον γενόμενον suggest that the words were introduced by copyists, perhaps from ver. 23 (περίλυπος ἐγενήθη). On the other hand, since Luke’s penchant of repeating a word or phrase in adjacent passages may have operated here, a majority of the Committee did not feel at liberty to omit the phrase entirely, but enclosed it within square brackets.

It would appear that the NRSV-CE translators and editors opted to exclude the bracketed Greek in this case.
This is not necessarily an innovation.  The phrase was also excluded from the NRSV, RSV, and RSV-CE, which are based on the same Greek text:

NRSV

Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!

RSV, RSV-CE

Jesus looking at him said, “How hard it is for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God!

The Modern English Version is based, as is the King James Version, on the 16th century Textus Receptus Greek text.  This text doesn't have any kind of annotation (e.g. square brackets) to indicate the certainty of the text.  It also has a slightly different word order at the end of the verse, but this is more or less irrelevant to the English translation:

ἰδὼν δὲ αὐτὸν ὁ Ἰησοῦς περίλυπον γενόμενον εἶπε, Πῶς δυσκόλως οἱ τὰ χρήματα ἔχοντες εἰσελεύσονται εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ.


Why the disciple took Jesus' mother unto his own home? 26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home. - KJV John 19:26,27

We are not seeing Joseph near cross? Why did Jesus hand over his mother to his disciple? Where are his brothers and his father? Is there a history attached to it?

SO, according to Tradition, Joseph had long since passed when Jesus even began his ministry, making him ineligible. The next question is "Why didn't Jesus entrust his mother to one of his step-brothers then?"

There is no substantial evidence that he had step-brothers. As the Aramaic word for "brother" is better understood "kinsman", it is quite possible that Christ had no step-brother, only kinsmen (meaning that he may have only had cousins)
The Apostle John WAS A COUSIN of Christ. The point is made here, but if you really want a better explanation you should contact Dr. Glasov at Seton Hall University. He has a cool chart and some nifty textual criticism.
As both a cousin and the beloved disciple, John was in the unique situation of being both the most faithful to Christ and a close blood relative. As such, he was probably the best choice to be given this honor.


Why was the significance of Jesus' upcoming betrayal hidden from His disciples? Luke 9:43b-45 (NLT)

  Jesus Again Predicts His Death

  While everyone was marveling at everything he was doing, Jesus said to his disciples, 44 “Listen to me and remember what I say. The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of his enemies.” 45 But they didn’t know what he meant. Its significance was hidden from them, so they couldn’t understand it, and they were afraid to ask him about it.

Why?

Was the significance "actively" hidden from the disciples in the sense that they were prevented from understanding, or is this a more "passive" sort, as in the disciples just didn't get what Jesus was saying? If the former, why was the significance of Jesus' statement obscured, and if the latter, why didn't Jesus clarify the matter? Either way, what was the point of keeping the disciples from understanding the significance of Jesus' soon-to-be betrayal?

I'd most appreciate writings from the early church fathers, but exegesis is also welcome.

Matthew Henry writes:

  This prediction of Christ's sufferings was plain enough, but the disciples would not understand it, because it agreed not with their notions. A little child is the emblem by which Christ teaches us simplicity and humility. What greater honour can any man attain to in this world, than to be received by men as a messenger of God and Christ; and to have God and Christ own themselves received and welcomed in him! If ever any society of Christians in this world, had reason to silence those not of their own communion, the twelve disciples at this time had; yet Christ warned them not to do the like again. Those may be found faithful followers of Christ, and may be accepted of him, who do not follow with us.

So Henry says they did not understand because it was not what they wanted to understand.

Cyril of Alexandria writes (SERMON LIII):

  In order, therefore, that they might know what certainly would happen, He bade them, so to speak, store up the mystery in their mind. "For lay ye it," He says, "to your hearts." In which words, the "ye" distinguishes them from all others. For He wished indeed that they should themselves know what would happen, but not that they should communicate it to others. For it was not right for the unlearned to be taught simply His future passion, but far better, to convince them at the same time of His having risen divinely from the grave, and abolished death, and so avoid the danger of their being offended.

He says that Jesus knew that the disciples would worry and question their faith when Jesus was crucified, but so that they would not fall away, he told them exactly what would happen, that they might store it in their minds until the day when they needed to understand it, and it would be revealed to them at that point.

I think the answer is a combination of these two - that the disciples did not want to try to understand the evil that was ahead, but also that Jesus cared for them and showed it so they might not fear, but continue to trust in him while he was in the grave.

Additionally, I found this sermon that makes an interesting argument that the disciples were not yet saved. It makes some  interesting points, but I am not sure I agree with the conclusions there, especially with some of the declarations the disciples made before this point and the faith they did have, as evidenced by the works they performed. The main points were:

They did not understand the gospel.
They did not understand the gospel even though they heard it preached many times. (see Mark 9:30-32, Matthew 17:22-23, Matthew 16:21-22)
They did not understand the gospel because their eyes had not been opened - they had not yet received the converting work of the Holy Spirit of God. (see John 20:24-29, Luke 24:31, John 14:17)

Again, there is some useful commentary there, but I would be careful because some claims are made that do not seem to be supported by Scripture.