What's the biblical basis that Joseph adopted Jesus? It is common in Christian discussion to describe Joseph as Jesus' earthly father or his adoptive father.

What does the Bible say about the adoption of Jesus by Joseph, Mary's husband? Is there biblical basis for calling Joseph the adoptive father of Jesus?

I think the answer to your question turns on the underlying assumptions on what it means to adopt someone or for them to be adopted.  Are you asking:

For a legal standing of Jesus adoption by Joseph, wherein a court would accept that Jesus is legally Joseph's son?
For a simple proof that Jesus was accepted as Joseph's son by his family and by society in general?

I believe we may not be able to adequately establish the first, but the second can be, and I will attempt to establish it in the remainder of this answer.

First, let's establish the simple facts of Jesus birth, from scripture:

  18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ happened this way. While his mother Mary was engaged to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. 19 Because Joseph, her husband to be, was a righteous man, and because he did not want to disgrace her, he intended to divorce her privately. 20 When he had contemplated this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, because the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son and you will name him Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.” 22 This all happened so that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet would be fulfilled: 23 “Look! The virgin will conceive and bear a son, and they will call him Emmanuel,” which means “God with us.” 24 When Joseph awoke from sleep he did what the angel of the Lord told him. He took his wife, 25 but did not have marital relations with her until she gave birth to a son, whom he named Jesus. (Matthew 1:18-25 - NET)

From the account, we can see that Jesus was conceived within Mary by the Holy Ghost.  Joseph took Mary legally as his wife prior to Jesus' birth, though they did not consummate the marriage until after Jesus was born. Based on this, it seems clear that there may not have needed to be any real "adoption" per se, but that Jesus would have been accepted as Joseph's son without any need for adoption. It seems pretty clear that by following the divine directive and marrying Mary that Joseph accepted his place as Jesus earthly father and "adopted" Jesus in a very real way. Only Mary and Joseph would have known otherwise.

From Luke, we know that Mary (and Joseph) are originally from Nazareth:

  26 In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, 27 to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, a descendant of David, and the virgin’s name was Mary. 28 The angel came to her and said, “Greetings, favored one, the Lord is with you!” (Luke 1:26-28 - NET)

So Mary was living in Nazareth originally.  However, Jesus was born in Bethlehem:

  1 Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus to register all the empire for taxes. 2 This was the first registration, taken when Quirinius was governor of Syria. 3 Everyone went to his own town to be registered. 4 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family line of David. 5 He went to be registered with Mary, who was promised in marriage to him, and who was expecting a child. 6 While they were there, the time came for her to deliver her child. 7 And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in strips of cloth and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn. (Luke 2:1-7 - NET)

After this they were apparently in Bethlehem for quite some time, rather than returning to Nazareth. They waited for the wise men to arrive, then fled to Egypt, and eventually returned, after Herod died.  Rather than return to Bethlehem, he went back to Nazareth:

  19 After Herod had died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt 20 saying, “Get up, take the child and his mother, and go to the land of Israel, for those who were seeking the child’s life are dead.” 21 So he got up and took the child and his mother and returned to the land of Israel. 22 But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. After being warned in a dream, he went to the regions of Galilee. 23 He came to a town called Nazareth and lived there. (Matthew 2:19-23)

So, it's not entirely clear, but certainly plausible, that those living in Nazareth didn't have any idea about the exact circumstances of Jesus' birth, as Joseph and Mary were not around Nazareth for a substantial period of time. They certainly did not know that Joseph wasn't really the father.

It's clear from later accounts in scripture that the townspeople believed Joseph was Jesus' natural father:

  54 Then he came to his hometown and began to teach the people in their synagogue. They were astonished and said, “Where did this man get such wisdom and miraculous powers? 55 Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother named Mary? And aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas? 56 And aren’t all his sisters here with us? Where did he get all this?” 57 And so they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own house.” 58 And he did not do many miracles there because of their unbelief. (Matthew 13:54-58)

So regardless of what we consider the "legal adoptive status" of Jesus with respect to Joseph, the townspeople, at the very least, accepted him as a legitimate member of Mary and Joseph's family, calling their other children Jesus' brothers and sisters.  This seems to corroborate that Joseph's action of marrying Mary was also an act of adopting Jesus from a practical perspective.

I don't know that this can allow us to "legally" call Joseph as Jesus' "adoptive" father, and I am not familiar with Jewish custom or law on this point.


What was the first translation to transliterate the tetragrammaton? Some Christians today like to transliterate the Tetragrammaton into their modern language translations, and to pronounce the name when reading aloud (their best reconstruction of the name I mean, usually "Yahweh".) Other Christians oppose this, saying that it goes against centuries and even millenia of Jewish and Christian practice.

So I'd like to know what was the earliest translation of the Hebrew scriptures which attempted to transliterate the Tetragrammaton?

Answers should not be limited to English translations, but they should only give translations which frequently use a transliteration. For example, see Wikipedia for translations which use "Jehovah". The KJV's seven uses of "Jehovah" is not the kind of translation I'm asking about; Young's Literal Translation (published 1862) with 6831 uses of "Jehovah" is.

(Aparently the formal definition of "transliteration" is strictly a one to one mapping, with "transcription" refers to trying to write the sounds ignoring silent or double letters etc. In my experience "transcription" is colloquially called "transliteration". But it probably doesn't make a difference for the Tetragrammaton.)

It would appear that the Septuagint may be the first translation of the ancient Hebrew scriptures to have retained YHWH. Although retaining the Hebrew form of this word is not a transliteration, please bear with me as I explain what happened.

In the time of Ptolomaic rule over Judea (320 to 198 B.C.) many Greek people came in to Judea, their culture influencing the people. This hellenization resulted in a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures. It began to be written around 285 B.C. and was finished during the 100s B.C. The Septuagint became the scriptures for Greek speaking Jews of the first century A.D. and the apostle Paul used it when quoting from the Hebrew scriptures, though he never kept the Hebrew YHWH, but wrote Greek for ‘Lord’. This is significant when Paul quoted Hebrew text referring to Yahweh but applied it to Jesus Christ. This was a transliteration. Was it the earliest, the first?

From this link below the claim is made that,

  “In the earliest manuscripts of the Septuagint the Tetragrammaton was
  given in Hebrew letters, which in Greek circles were supposed to be
  Greek and were read πιπι (Field, "Origenis Hexaplorum Quæ Supersunt,"
  i. 90, Oxford, 1875; Herzog-Hauck, l.c. viii. 530; Blau, l.c. p.
  131).”
  http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14346-tetragrammaton

I have no knowledge of whether those earliest manuscripts of the Septuagint were actually Greek and were read πιπι, or not. However, if they were, then that would be a transliteration.

According to the link below, there are ancient Greek manuscripts, such as the Septuagint, proto-masoretic, kaige, translation by Aquila of Sinope, Symmachus the Ebionite, Theodotion and the Hexapla [written by Origen in the first half of the third century A.D.] that contain the Hebrew YHWH or that have it in paleo-Hebrew script. Those would not be transliterations.

However, it is important to note that that particular manuscript fragment in the entry below is a REVISION of the Septuagint, so that the Septuagint original will pre-date it.
It adds that there is a book on this written by Emanuel Tov in 1990: Discoveries in the Judean Desert: VIII. The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Nahal Hever (8HevXIIgr). Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN 978-0-198263272
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Minor_Prophets_Scroll_from_Nahal_Hever

Now, your question asks about earliest transliterations of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton, yet I have written about retaining the Hebrew, not transliterations of it (apart from the possibility of a transliteration into Greek in the link http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14346-tetragrammaton

This is where my final link is of significance.

  The Septuagint represents the first major effort at translating a
  significant religious text from one language into another. It is
  interesting to note that many of the New Testament quotes from the
  Hebrew Bible are taken from the Septuagint. As faithful as the
  Septuagint translators strived to be in accurately rendering the
  Hebrew text into Greek, some translational differences arose. In
  comparing the New Testament quotations of the Hebrew Bible, it is
  clear that the Septuagint was often used. This is the result of the
  fact that by the late 1st century B.C., and especially the 1st century
  A.D. – the Septuagint had “replaced” the Hebrew Bible as the
  Scriptures most people used. Since most people spoke and read Greek as
  their primary language, and the Greek authorities strongly encouraged
  the use of Greek, the Septuagint became much more common than the
  Hebrew Old Testament. The fact that the Apostles and New Testament
  authors felt comfortable, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, in
  using the Septuagint should give us assurance that a translation of
  the original languages of the Bible is still the authoritative Word of
  God.

http://www.gotquestion.org/YHWH.html

Please note how the apostle Paul transliterated his quotations from the Hebrew scriptures where the Tetragrammaton occurred, into the Greek word for ‘Lord’.

Obviously, if another answer gives evidence of the Tetragrammaton being transliterated in manuscripts predating Paul’s writings (all completed before A.D. 70), then my answer will need to be corrected.


Does God have free will? To clarify the question - when I mention God here I am referring to God the Father and by free will, the best non-contradictory definition according to the Bible I have heard is "the ability to act apart from one's nature".

When I first came across this question it sounds almost absurd. Of course God has free will, He willed us into being. But maybe willing something and free will are two different things.  And maybe we have a hard time thinking about this because we personify God to have human traits and the ability to act apart from our nature is a human only trait.

I would argue that the premise that free will is "the ability to act apart from one's nature" is essentially flawed.  Free will is the ability to act within your power according to your nature.

However, regardless of your definition of free will, the question is also influenced by a finite viewpoint.  God is both infinite and perfect.  He has free will, and his will is perfect and his nature is infinite such that his will is perfectly executed.  Being both infinite and perfect in nature, it is not possible for any of the three persons of the Trinity to ever act contrary to their perfect nature - that's one of the reasons it's possible for God to be three persons without inter-relational conflict.

We tend to over anthropomorphize God, and we must be very careful not to reconstruct God in our image, instead of the other way around.  We image God but imperfectly; we are like him, but we are not identical to him (as if that needs to be said).

In a mysterious way, within this creation, God has created us sufficiently in his image such that we have free will; and we will according to our nature, which is fallen and corrupted.  Somehow, God has organized things in this dimension (or these 4 dimensions, if you like), such that we can exercise our free will without contravening his.  It's as if he has deliberately chosen to limit himself for the sake of our creation - how this resonates with his will I cannot explain... as I said, it's a mystery.


Does ex opere operato apply to infants? "Ex opere operato" says that a person must have the proper disposition and desire in order to receive graces through sacraments (correct me if I'm over simplifying this).

Does this not apply to infants when being baptized?

How do infants receive graces from baptism?

What is the doctrine regarding infants and "ex opere operato".

I'd say not, but this is just my opinion, and not because I've ever heard of Ex Opere Operato so I'll keep this short and hopefully someone adds a better answer.  But Baptism leaves an indelible mark:

  Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, the person baptized is configured to Christ. Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ. No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation. Given once for all, Baptism cannot be repeated.

CCC 1272

Which is more like chiseling yours and your bride's initials into a post with a big heart around it.


Why did God create the idea of opposites? While I was finding out more about God, the ubiquitous question- did God create Hell? - often turned up. And many answers I have read mentioned that Hell was an inevitability due to the existence of Heaven; this is often paralleled by how darkness is a concomitant of light, and evil a concomitant of good. But where did this idea of oppposites even come from? Why did God who created this universe from a blank canvas decide that there must be opposites? It is as though he split up the canvas into half- one half for good and the other for evil. Isn't the idea of opposites a very 'human' concept?

In the vein of your question, I pose a simpler question whose answer may help us think about yours in the right frame of mind.

Does Good, by Definition, Require Evil in Order to Exist?

It is common for people have circular definitions for "good" and "evil." Evil is the opposite of good; good is the opposite of evil. In reality, the two are definitely playing for opposing teams, but they are not really opposites.

Evil definitely depends on good for its meaning. The converse is definitely not true, however. Good has meaning all on its own which does not depend on evil. In Genesis 1, after God creates the substance of the universe, he pronounces (nearly) each of these things "good." At this point, no evil has been mentioned, and by the end of creation, God pronounces the sum of his creation as "very good." Good seems to carry the meaning, "how God made it and intended it to be" or "according to God's will." Before chapter 3, the only thing that's spoken of as "not good" is a deficiency (something not yet created, woman) that God immediately remedies. There's no need for evil in this definition of good.

When sin and death enter the world, we see that evil is a corruption or perversion of good. Evil cannot be defined without their being good. Good has no such dependency.

Why did God Create (Moral) Opposites?

In a moral sense, I don't think you could say that there are opposites. There's what's good, which existed from the beginning of creation and would have remained even if humans had never sinned. Evil wasn't created by God. The capacity for evil was "created" because freedom is an essential element in genuine love, and for there to be freedom, the possibility of choosing something other than what was good was necessary.

God didn't create Heaven and Hell as two neighborhoods in the afterlife. In a metaphorical sense, Heaven is "intimacy with God" and Hell is "separation from God." Before Genesis 3, there was no need for Hell (for humans, anyway—little is said of the genesis of angels and daemons), and so it need not have existed as if God made it ahead of time knowing that he was going to need it eventually.

Moral "opposites" push you in opposite directions, but they are not, themselves, actual opposites.


What's the difference between resurrection and revival? Okay, now this question about resurrections in the Bible has me wondering what the difference between resurrection and revival is. If resurrection "returns them to their proper embodied state, in which they will remain forever after", then how are the raising of Lazarus, the son of the Shunammite woman, the daughter of Jairus, and others, resurrections? Did these people become immortal (i.e. living forever, never dying) before Jesus did?

There are two types of Resurrections in the Bible.

1. Temporary Resurrection

Those who are brought back from the dead without a new body given to them. They will still die again when their time comes. This resurrection is mostly for the purpose of God's glory or to simply extend the life of the dead person on Earth as a result of prayer. This, even now is still happening in many parts of the world. Jesus resurrected Lazarus only to glorify God and himself through it.

  When Jesus heard that, He said, “This sickness is not unto death, but
  for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified through
  it.”  (John 11:4, NKJV)

2. Eternal Resurrection

Those who will be brought back from the dead for eternity. This will happen at "The Last Day". There are again two types based on the destiny of the resurrected person.

  And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, Some
  to everlasting life, Some to shame and everlasting contempt. (Daniel
  12:2, NKJV)

Resurrection of the just: Those who will be resurrected to inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. They will live with God for eternity. Their names are written in the Book of Life and they will live in the New Earth. Jesus Christ was the first one to be resurrected in this manner. This is also called "The First Resurrection".

  But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits
  of those who have fallen asleep. For since by man came death, by Man
  also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even
  so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order:
  Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His
  coming. (1 Corinthians 15:20-23, NKJV)

  And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to
  them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their
  witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the
  beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads
  or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a
  thousand years. But the rest of the dead did not live again until the
  thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
  Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection.
  (Revelation 20:4-6, NKJV)

Resurrection of the damned: Those who will be resurrected only to be judged and thrown into the Lake of Fire to be tormented for eternity.

  Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the
  second death. And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was
  cast into the lake of fire. (Revelation 20:14-15, NKJV)


Why does Iglesia ni Cristo use the Lamsa Bible? Recently, I met members of a group called Iglesia ni Cristo (Tagalog for "Church of Christ"). After I looked them up and watched some debates between them and other Christian churches, I observed that while English speakers in their group support their teachings using a number of Bible translations, the Lamsa Bible seems to be the one they most often reference.

What are the main reasons Iglesia ni Cristo uses the Lamsa Bible and how is this translation viewed by "mainstream" scholars with a traditional approach to biblical scholarship?

Iglesia ni Cristo (English: Church of Christ; abbreviated as INC) is an international Christian denomination religion that originated in the Philippines. It was registered and preached in 1914 by Felix Manalo,who became the first executive minister [1].

This new sect Iglesia Ni Cristo ( English: Church of Christ) is just 100 years old.They are avid Unitarians.Their Unitarian Theology is identical to Socinus than to Arius.

The Lamsa Bible is an English translation of the Aramaic Bible by George Lamsa [2].

The main reasons INC uses the Lamsa Bible is because it suits their theology.

The Lamsa Bible contains the exact phrase "church of Christ" in Acts 20:28 whereas all Greek MSS reads " ekklessia theou."

INC strictly teaches its doctrines in terminology that is found only in the Bible.

They use Acts 20:28 twofold purpose:

1) To deny the divinity of Christ [ it wasn't God's blood].

2) To affirm their claim that the name of the only true church is church of Christ.[For INC other churches whose name is not church of Christ is automatically a false church].

Reference:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iglesia_ni_Cristo

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamsa_Bible


What is the Biblical basis for saying that we won't have a second chance to be saved after we die? A commonly held belief is that people need to accept Jesus as Lord during their lifetime on Earth and failing to do so will result in the individual's damnation. Is there any support for this "last call" doctrine?

Since there is life after death, I have wondered if people will have an opportunity to make a decision for Jesus after their death. Is there any support for this "second chance" idea? I have tried to study it and have not able to find anything in the bible that would contradict this idea that we can still make a decision for Christ after this life.

The mainstream Christian answer is that there is no chance for repentance after death.  The Scripture used to support this is Hebrews 9:27 which says

  And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that
  comes judgment

The protestant answer goes further saying this:
(From http://www.gotquestions.org/second-chance-salvation.html)

  While the idea of a second chance for salvation is appealing, the
  Bible is clear that death is the end of all chances. Hebrews 9:27
  tells us that we die, and then face judgment. So, as long as a person
  is alive, he has a second, third, fourth, fifth, etc. chance to accept
  Christ and be saved (John 3:16; Romans 10:9-10; Acts 16:31). Once a
  person dies, there are no more chances. The idea of purgatory, a place
  where people go after death to pay for their sins, has no biblical
  basis, but is rather a tradition of the Roman Catholic Church

Now in all fairness, the Cathollic Church doesn't teach that there is a chance for repentance after death.  This is a misrepresentation.

From the Catholic Answers forum:

  The teaching of the Church is very clear on this point: if we die in a
  State of Grace, we will attain salvation. Otherwise, we (probably) go
  to hell.

  We are placed in a State of Grace through Christian Baptism. We remove
  ourselves through mortal sin. We are restored to a State of Grace by
  Sacramental Confession.

  The Church recognizes the possibility that salvation might be attained
  by other means (which have not been revealed). Thus, we have hope for
  salvation for unbaptized infants (but nobody knows for sure what
  happens to them)

  There's no telling what we can make of near-death experiences. If we
  accept them at face value, they could be interpreted as an experience
  of purgatory (not hell). Or they might represent some "other means" of
  salvation that has not been revealed to the Church.

LDS teaching is a bit more... Complex.  Some LDS Scriptures seem to say Yes and some say no.

LDS Scripture teaching no repentance after death:

  Mosiah 2:36-39

  And now, I say unto you, my brethren, that after ye have known and have been taught all these things, if ye should transgress and go
  contrary to that which has been spoken, that ye do withdraw yourselves
  from the Spirit of the Lord, that it may have no place in you to guide
  you in wisdom's paths that ye may be blessed, prospered, and
  preserved—I say unto you, that the man that doeth this, the same
  cometh out in open rebellion against God; therefore he listeth to obey
  the evil spirit, and becometh an enemy to all righteousness;
  therefore, the Lord has no place in him, for he dwelleth not in unholy
  temples. Therefore if that man repenteth not, and remaineth and dieth
  an enemy to God, the demands of divine justice do awaken his immortal
  soul to a lively sense of his own guilt, which doth cause him to
  shrink from the presence of the Lord, and doth fill his breast with
  guilt, and pain, and anguish, which is like an unquenchable fire,
  whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever.

  Alma 34:32-35

  32 For behold, this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God; yea, behold the day of this life is the day for men to perform
  their labors. 33 And now, as I said unto you before, as ye have had so
  many witnesses, therefore, I beseech of you that ye do not
  procrastinate the day of your repentance until the end; for after this
  day of life, which is given us to prepare for eternity, behold, if we
  do not improve our time while in this life, then cometh the night of
  darkness wherein there can be no labor performed. 34 Ye cannot say,
  when ye are brought to that awful crisis, that I will repent, that I
  will return to my God. Nay, ye cannot say this; for that same spirit
  which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this
  life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that
  eternal world. 35 For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of
  your repentance even until death, behold, ye have become subjected to
  the spirit of the devil, and he doth seal you his; therefore, the
  Spirit of the Lord hath withdrawn from you, and hath no place in you,
  and the devil hath all power over you; and this is the final state of
  the wicked.

LDS teaching stating there can be repentance after death...

  Doctrine and Covenants 128:5

  5 You may think this order of things to be very particular; but let me
  tell you that it is only to answer the will of God, by conforming to
  the ordinance and preparation that the Lord ordained and prepared
  before the foundation of the world, for the salvation of the dead who
  should die without a knowledge of the gospel.

All that aside, getting back to a purely Biblical answer, we fall back to the standard Protestant "No. Once you die there is no further chance for repentance, according tothe teachings of Jesus".  For this, we need look no further than Luke 16:19-31

  19 “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and
  lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named
  Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the
  rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

  22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to
  Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades,
  where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with
  Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have
  pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and
  cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’

  25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you
  received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now
  he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this,
  between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those
  who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from
  there to us.’

  27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family,
  28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not
  also come to this place of torment.’

  29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them
  listen to them.’

  30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes
  to them, they will repent.’

  31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets,
  they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

This horrifying account tells of someone who has died in his sin, and has no way out.  Verse 25 makes it pretty clear that there is no way across that chasm from Hell to Heaven after death.


How is the belief that Christians are both adopted and begotten sons of God reconciled? If one is begotten, then one cannot be adopted by those same parents. The idea of being begotten means that you are the biological progeny of your parents. In other words, the woman whom you call “mother” is the same woman who gave birth to you. But, in the case of adoption, the woman whom you call “mother” is not the same woman who gave birth to you. (Let’s recall that the New Testament was written in the 1st century A.D. There were no such things as in-vitro fertilization or surrogate motherhood.) Likewise, if you are adopted, your father is not the same man who begat you. With that being said, how can we reconcile the fact that Christians are said to be both begotten/born again and adopted?
Begotten

John 1:12-13 cp. 1 Pet. 1:3

12 But to those who received him, he gave them power to become the sons of God, even to those who believe that believe in his name, 13 who were begotten, neither of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
ΙΒʹ ὅσοι δὲ ἔλαβον αὐτόν ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ἐξουσίαν τέκνα θεοῦ γενέσθαι τοῖς πιστεύουσιν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ΙΓʹ οἳ οὐκ ἐξ αἱμάτων οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος σαρκὸς οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος ἀνδρὸς ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ θεοῦ ἐγεννήθησαν TR, 1550

Adopted

Gal. 4:5 cp. Rom. 8:15; Eph. 1:5

5 in order to redeem those who were under the Law, so that we may receive the adoption of sons.
Εʹ ἵνα τοὺς ὑπὸ νόμον ἐξαγοράσῃ ἵνα τὴν υἱοθεσίαν ἀπολάβωμεν TR, 1550

Michael Peppard wrote,

In the move from proclamation to narration, however, each early Christian theologian had to make a decision about how to portray the metaphor of divine sonship. Is it begotten or adopted? By the fourth century, the answer would become mostly clear: the divine sonship of Jesus Christ was by begetting and that of everyone else was by adoption. But in the first two centuries, and especially in areas more influenced by Roman culture, a high view of adopted sons was well established.

References
Peppard, Michael. “Adopted and Begotten Sons of God: Paul and John on Divine Sonship.” Catholic Bible Quarterly, vol. 73, no. 1, 2011, pp. 92–110.

In the verse you quoted, John 1:12-13, the Greek words for "children of God" is "tekna Theou." (Notice that "tekna" is always referring to "little children.")

Contrast this with John 3:16 which uses "monogene huion" or "only Son." The term "monogene" being the one containing the notion of "the only offspring" or "the only begotten one."

(Also, anywhere else in the New Testament, "huion" always refers to a "mature" children, not little ones)

Based on this, I believe that the translation that use the word "begotten" should not be used to ascribe the concept of "begotten" into these verses. In fact in ESV translation (and some others), there is no "begotten" in both John 1:12-13 and John 3:16.

I also believe that the only "begotten" Son is the Lord Jesus Christ and Him alone. Believers are adopted sons (and daughters) of God.  There is no notion of "begotten" ever applied to believers.


What is the Biblical support for a distinction between veneration and worship? I was reading a question about icons, and this raised some questions for me.

Catholic and Eastern Orthodox beliefs hold to there being a difference between worship and veneration. What is the Biblical support for drawing a distinction between worship and veneration?

I was not able to find an answer on SE for this that does not rely on external sources.

To approach this question we must first cut through terminology.

The Catholic Dictionary defines worship as

  Acknowledgment of another's worth, dignity, or superior position.

So worship is not, necessarily, religious at all.

It then goes on to define two words for worship of a particularly religious character.

  In religion, worship is given either to God, and then it is adoration, or to the angels and saints, and it is called  veneration.

The basic definitions from the Oxford dictionary define worship as

  the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity

(which is what Catholics mean by adoration)

and venerate as

  Regard with great respect; revere (i.e. feel deep respect or admiration for)

The King James Version generally regards worship as  having a wide connotation, similar to the Catholic definition of worship. The NIV uses worship only for worship of a (real or supposed) deity.

I take the OP's question to be asking for the difference between worship and veneration in the Oxford terminology; which is to say the difference between adoration and veneration in the Catholic terminology.

Either way, the distinction is simply that one relates to the worship of a deity, and the other does not. That is, quite simply, the difference. In a way, to answer the question, there is nothing more to be said. However there is a lot more that can be said.

We can consider some examples. When David grovelled to Saul (1 Samuel 24 8), and when Mephibosheth grovelled to David (2 Samuel 9 8) this was veneration, acknowledging the other's superior status. In Revelations 3 9 we are told that some who had been false would worship at the feet of the Philadelphian Christians, acknowledging that  they are the ones loved by God. It was surely not intended that members of the Philadelphian church should be worshiped as gods;  but rather that they be venerated as loved by God.   The worship of God described in Revelations 19 4 is adoration  because it is to God. The worship of Diana (Acts 19 27) is adoration, not mere veneration, because Diana, whatever her true status, was being worshiped as a deity.

A much lower form of the word worship appears in the Banquet (Luke 14 10) where the guest is advised to sit at the lower end of the table so  that when the host asks him up higher he will have worship (KJV). This does not, of course, mean the other guests will imagine him to be divine, or bow down to him, merely that he will go up somewhat  in their estimation.

Before looking in more detail at the Bible it may be helpful to consider the concept of veneration in ordinary life.

We may attend church to worship God, by singing His praises, praying, contemplating His being and  listening attentively to His word. We may be impressed with the sermon, appreciating the message as inspiring , challenging, informative and useful.  We may think appreciatively of the amount of effort and study which the preacher has gone to, not just in preparing this sermon but in all the back years of study which enabled him to do this., We may be moved by the singing of the choir. In post-service fellowship we may enjoy a most delicious piece of cake, lovingly baked by a culinarily talented member of the flock. We may admire all these people, and remark favourably on them to others. We may personally speak to the preacher thanking him and praising him. We may do the same to the cakemaker  We may compliment one of the choirboys on his talent, diligence at practice, commitment and skill; all the while conscious that our own  abilities and efforts fall far short of his.

We would not think we were venerating the preacher, the baker or the musician, but that is what we would be doing. We would not bow down, as that is not in our culture, but we might express our admiration by physical gesture,  in other contexts, by  applauding with our hands. Applause is, in the wider sense, a form of worship.

We should not find that our appreciation of the cake got in the way of our worship of God, but if it did,  almost certainly it is our worship of God which is too low, rather than our veneration of the cake which is too high.

Even animals, lacking words,  use gestures  to acknowledge status.

To turn now to worship in the New Testament; the most common word for worship is proskuneo (Strong's concordance word number 4352). This literally meant to kiss the ground in front of a person's feet as a mark of respect. This may mean anything from worshiping God to a conventional courtesy to a person of higher status.    Jairus (Matthew 9 18) and Mrs Zebedee (Matthew 20 20) were not worshiping Jesus as divine. The NIV translates proskuneo in these cases simply as knelt, though the KJV uses worship, reflecting the older usage. In the parable of the debtor (Matthew 18 26) the debtor falls to his knees and begs for time to pay. Again it is the same word, and the KJV translates it as worship. In general the NIV interprets the same word differently, depending on whether the perpetrator regards the recipient as divine.  That is the difference between worship (OP sense) and veneration, is neither more nor less than  to whom is it directed (or rather what does the doer think of that person).

This same word is used to describe the Heavenly worship  in Revelations 19 4 and the worship of the Beast (Revelations 13 8).

It is also the word used in John 4 20-24 where the Samaritan woman challenges Jesus as to why Jews worship only at the Temple. Here it seems to have a slightly higher meaning. After all, Jews worshipped in synagogues too, but the temple worship was special because it involved sacrifice. Similarly, it has been argued, true Christian worship, at its highest, requires participation in the sacrifice of the Mass.

A different Greek word latreia  (Strongs 2999) means more particularly service to God, the worship of God, and is translated in Romans 12 1 as true and proper worship in the NIV. This word is also used to refer in several places to the worship of God in the temple.  Philippians 3 3 has this as worship God in His Spirit in the KJV but  serve God by His Spirit in the NIV.

In Acts 14 the priests of Zeus wanted to offer sacrifices to Paul and Barnabas, which led to them tearing their clothes and protesting strongly. This incident concerned an attempt to treat them as gods.

In Acts 10 25 Cornelius worshipped Peter (KJV) or did him reverence (NIV). Peter told him to stand up. There is no compelling reason to assume Cornelius intended to adore Peter as divine, rather than make a common gesture of polite respect.  Similarly Peter asking Cornelius to stand up is not, of itself, any argument that gestures of respect are wrong. It may simply be two men being mutually courteous to each other. It might be argued one way, it might be argued another.

In Revelations John twice tries  to worship an angel, and is discouraged by that angel (Revelations 19 10 and Revelations 22 8).

The worship of angels, referred to in Colossians 2 18, is based on a different Greek word, threskeia (Strong's 2356) which means  religion. What is being discussed here is a religion of angels, whatever that may have been.

The Church of England Article 22 states that the Roman doctrine concerning (amongst other things) worshiping, and adoration, of images and relics is grounded upon no warranty of Scripture. This being said, it is unlikely that any clear and convincing proof could ever be found to endorse such practices as being required by the Bible alone.  If there were such a clear unequivocal scriptural warrant could the C of E have failed to notice it? If one were subsequently deduced then, like the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, it would be way too complicated for most of us  to comprehend.   However,  Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox do not ascribe to the Protestant "sola scriptura" (scripture alone) doctrine, but rather they teach that authoritative doctrine comes equally from the tradition of the Church. The Bible itself emerged from, and forms part of but not all of, that tradition.  Nowhere in the Bible is there a list of books which constitute the Bible, for example. The Church has decided .  Therefore the fact (if acknowledged)  that there is no proven warrant from scripture is not, from a Catholic or Orthodox perspective, reason to doubt the validity of a practice which is hallowed by centuries of Church tradition, and is found, in practice to increase devotion to, and worship of, God Himself.


What is the biblical basis to either consider tattoos acceptable or not? I do not remember exactly where but I think the OT says somewhere that doing things like tattoos to your body is not good and, to God, is morally objectionable. Is this true? I do know that some denominations strictly forbid it, however, I have never heard much reasoning other than tattoos are commonly associated with criminals and the like. I have often heard the old phrase 'The body is the temple of the Lord' but I am not sure if that is even in the Bible and do not know its context.

If this argument cannot be made Biblically then why the objection among some Christians?

The prohibition against tattoos comes from Leviticus 19:28 (ESV):

  You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo
  yourselves: I am the Lord.


Did Jesus own a home as an adult or was He a nomad? Did Jesus own a home as an adult or was He a nomad?

If He did own a home, did He live with someone else?

There are two places in scripture where people are surprised to discover that Jesus is in a house, probably his or his family's.  The first place is where Mary and Joseph are living when the wise men follow the star to them.  Jesus is not an infant at this point, but a 'young child' (2 years approx., according to Herod's death warrant) and the wise men follow the star to the house 'where they find the young child and Mary and Joseph.'

  Mathew 2:9-12 "9 When they heard the king, they departed; and behold, the star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came and stood over where the young Child was. 10 When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceedingly great joy. 11 And when they had come into the house, they saw the young Child with Mary His mother, and fell down and worshiped Him. And when they had opened their treasures, they presented gifts to Him: gold, frankincense, and myrrh."  NKJV

The second place is where we find Jesus as an adult man.

  Mark 2.15: καὶ γίνεται κατακεῖσθαι αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ αὐτοῦ καὶ πολλοὶ τελῶναι καὶ ἁμαρτωλοὶ συνανέκειντο τῷ Ἰησοῦ καὶ τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ ἦσαν γὰρ πολλοὶ καὶ ἠκολούθουν αὐτῷ

  And it happened that he was reclining in his house, and many tax collectors and sinners were reclining with Jesus and his disciples, for there were many who were following him . . .KJV

Mark 2:15 seems to suggest that Jesus may have had his own home.

Commentators and scholars have frequently interpreted this text to mean Levi's house, instead of Jesus' own home. To support this statement, it appears in many Bible translations themselves, as "Levi's house", in Mark 2:15.

Contrary to the above, we find Jesus saying,

  Matt. 8.20 // Luke 9.58, "Foxes have their holes and the birds of the air have their nests ....but the son of man has nowhere to lay His head."KJV

This above statement may refer to a later time in Jesus' ministry, perhaps after looking after the room and board of his disciples and the families they left at home, for the three years they were itinerate, that they followed him; Jesus may have sold his house to provide for them all, while he was training them, as they moved about from town to town; but considering that he paid their taxes with a gold coin from the mouth of a fish, he probably didn't sell the house for support, since they did have a bag of money later, for paying things, that Judas was in charge of.

  Mark 2:1 And again he entered into Capernaum after some days; and it was noised that he was in the house.
  2 And straightway many were gathered together, insomuch that there was no room to receive them, no, not so much as about the door: and he preached the word unto them.
  3 And they come unto him, bringing one sick of the palsy, which was borne of four.
  4 And when they could not come nigh unto him for the press, they uncovered the roof where he was: and when they had broken it up, they let down the bed wherein the sick of the palsy lay.
  5......thy sins be forgiven thee.
  6 But there was certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts...KJV

If Mark 2.1-12 also depicts Jesus at his (own) house (2.1, ἐν οἴκῳ, "at home"), perhaps that is why Jesus says, "Your sins are forgiven," as the man's friends destroy  the roof of the house, piece by piece...(this is my attempt at a joke, ie. Jesus says 'your sins are forgiven' because if they just destroyed Jesus' roof to let the stretcher through, Jesus might be thinking about 'that too', as he is ministering. (Jesus was also human, subject to things that bother us. He would have had to fix all the damage they did to his roof later,  probably not by miraculous means)

  Mark 2:1 And again he entered into Capernaum after some days; and it was noised that he was in the house.KJV

Capernaum was central to Jesus' ministry and may have been the place he was living when some of the first disciples asked to 'see where Jesus was staying', and he replied to 'come and see'. Mary his mother may have lived with him there. He may have operated a carpentry shop there before beginning his ministry. After his ministry began, it is possible that the disciples may have moved in with Jesus or Jesus and his mother. We don't read anything of Joseph in Jesus' adult life, but we know his mother Mary was at the wedding where Jesus did his first miracle, as were the disciples.

It is possible that Jesus may have had provision left from the royal gifts that were given to him at his birth by the wise men who travelled to find him. Scripture does not tell us how much gold or spices were given to him at that time; traditional Christmas pageants may cloud our understanding that there may have been donkey or camel trains of many animal loads of the gifts given to him, considering the wise men saw the star and set out to find him and offered expensive gifts fit for an earthly king. If this were the case, Jesus' home may have housed the twelve men in addition to himself and perhaps his mother and father, or just his mother, and perhaps his physical brothers or cousins, called brethren in the texts. Spices were often used as money by kings, Jesus received both gold and spices at his birth, gifts given by men who were either royals themselves or high up in the courts of other royals, as is understood by the term, - wise men.

  John 1:38-39
  They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou? 39 He saith unto them, Come and see. They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day: for it was about the tenth hour. KJV

  John Chapter 2:1 And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: 2 And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.

  John 2:11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.  12 After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days.  KJV

Where did they 'continue'- not many days? In an inn? In the one home of a friend who could house them all? Perhaps they continued at the house of Jesus and Mary, his mother.

In addition to all of the above, we find the following;

  Mark 9:28 When He came into the house, His disciples began questioning Him privately, "Why could we not drive it out?"

  Matthew 4:13
  Leaving Nazareth, he went and lived in Capernaum, which was by the lake in the area of Zebulun and Naphtali--

  "And again he entered into Capernaum.—See Notes on Matthew 9:1-8. Mark alone names Capernaum, Matthew describing it as “His own city.” The house may have been Peter’s, as before in Mark 1:29, or it may not have been."
  Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
  II.

"Mark 2:15: The Home of Jesus or Levi?," in the journal New Testament Studies, vol. 39, 1993, D. May


Catholic response to Luke 11:27-28 I am a Christian who recently became very interested in the Catholic faith. I am curious how the Catholic community responds to these verses, which seem to bring to question the "blessedness" of Virgin Mary.

Luke 11:27-28:

  As he said these things, a woman in the crowd spoke out to him, “Blessed is the womb that bore you and the breasts at which you nursed!” But he replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it!”

I have minimum knowledge about the Catholic conception of Mary. Please also help me clarify, if it pertains to your response to these verses.

It simply means that Mary is blessed not only for bearing the flesh of Christ, but most of all because she heard the word of God and obeyed it.

  "Mary is more blessed in receiving the faith of Christ, than in conceiving the flesh of Christ.  ...  For his brothers, his relatives according to the flesh who did not believe in him, of what advantage is that relationship?  Even her maternal relationship would have done Mary no good unless she had borne Christ more happily in her heart than in her flesh."  (Of Holy Virginity -3  - St. Augustine).

Please note that in the preceding verse a women acclaims, "Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed!". Jesus is correcting that women by saying that bearing Him and nursing Him is of no importance.....

  In His answer He did not disgrace His mother, but showed that His birth would have profited her nothing, had she not been really fruitful in works and faith. - St. Chrysostom

...Rather the blessedness of Mary (Luke 1:48) is because of her Fiat...

  She was the mother of God, and therefore indeed blessed, in that she was made the temporal minister of the Word becoming incarnate; yet therefore much more blessed that she remained the eternal keeper of the same ever to be beloved Word. - St. Bede


Is "There's more sanctity in a dog's loyalty than there is in all your human laws." a quote from the Holy Bible? I just saw an episode of The Simpson's on television (S28E22 - Dogtown), in which during a courtroom scene, the judge turns to the jury and says:

  Now, I have a brief instruction for the jury:

  "There's more sanctity in a dog's loyalty than there is in all your human laws."

Then raises the court's Holy Bible and motions to it, as if quoting scripture.

Quite a profound and eloquent statement, but not one I've ever seen/heard in relation to any spiritual or religious texts. A cursory online search yields no results. Can anybody confirm or deny? Thanks.

"There's more sanctity in a dog's loyalty than there is in all your human laws."

The above quote is not of biblical origin and can not be found in Scripture.

References to dogs in the bible are extremely rare. Most are in an unfavourable light, but not all.

In the Book of Tobit, ”man’s best friend” accompanies Tobiah on his journey to Media.

  Tobit's dog appears only twice (in 6:2 and 11:4) and plays no role in the story (actually he accompanies Tobias, Tobit's son). Like many dogs, he just shows up whenever something seems to be going on. This little detail has greatly exercised the commentators, and even now no one seems to know how the dog got into the story. - Tobit's Dog

Even family pets eating scraps is a ancient custom since immemorial times. Even Jesus talked about it:

  21 Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22 A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.”

  23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”

  24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”

  25 The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.

  26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”

  27 “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”

  28 Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment. - Matthew 15:21-28

The most macabre dog story can be found in 2 Kings 9: 30-37:

  30 And when Jehu was come to Jezreel, Jezebel heard of it; and she painted her face, and tired her head, and looked out at a window.

  31 And as Jehu entered in at the gate, she said, Had Zimri peace, who slew his master?

  32 And he lifted up his face to the window, and said, Who is on my side? who? And there looked out to him two or three eunuchs.

  33 And he said, Throw her down. So they threw her down: and some of her blood was sprinkled on the wall, and on the horses: and he trode her under foot.

  34 And when he was come in, he did eat and drink, and said, Go, see now this cursed woman, and bury her: for she is a king's daughter.

  35 And they went to bury her: but they found no more of her than the skull, and the feet, and the palms of her hands.

  36 Wherefore they came again, and told him. And he said, This is the word of the Lord, which he spake by his servant Elijah the Tishbite, saying, In the portion of Jezreel shall dogs eat the flesh of Jezebel:

  37 And the carcase of Jezebel shall be as dung upon the face of the field in the portion of Jezreel; so that they shall not say, This is Jezebel.

Queen Jezebel Being Punished by Jehu, by Andrea Celesti

  9I will make the house of Ahab like the houses of Jeroboam son of Nebat and Baasha son of Ahijah. 10And the dogs will eat Jezebel on the plot of ground at Jezreel, and there will be no one to bury her.’” Then the young prophet opened the door and ran away. 11When Jehu went out to the servants of his master, they asked, “Is everything all right? Why did this madman come to you?” “You know his kind and their babble,” he replied.… - 2 Kings 9:10

To be called a dog is to be considered of low status. I guess it is not a compliment to say the least.

  There is evidence in the Bible that physical violence toward dogs was considered acceptable (1 Samuel 17:43; Proverbs 26:17). To compare a human to a dog or to call them a dog was to imply that they were of very low status (2 Kings 8:13; Exodus 22:31; Deuteronomy 23:18; 2 Samuel 3:8; Proverbs 26:11; Ecclesiastes 9:4; 2 Samuel 9:8; 1 Samuel 24:14). In the New Testament, calling a human a dog meant that the person was considered evil (Philippians 3:2 ["Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision." (KJV)]; Revelation 22:15). - No, No, Bad Dog: Dogs in the Bible


What was the early Coptic doctrine for beliefs in the afterlife? I can find plenty of information regarding modern Coptic beliefs concerning beliefs in the afterlife, but I was wondering if that was always the same. I imagine, as with all religions, especially ones with such a long and rich history as the Copts, that theology has evolved over time.

Hence, I was wondering where I can go to find what the doctrine for beliefs in the afterlife were in late antiquity (ca. second to fifth centuries CE). Can someone point me in the right direction?

Regarding Coptic doctrines on afterlife or any other topic, it is important to note that Orthodox in general (be they Chalcedonian or Miaphysite) generally place great stock in "keeping the faith of the Apostles," even more than us Latins — who have a principle of doctrinal development. Thus, if you ask a Copt about their theology in Late Antiquity, they will tell you it is the exact same as their theology in the 21st Century.

That said, if you still subscribe to the position that some development must have taken place, then your best bet is to read the works of the Alexandrian Fathers. The standard work collating the extant documents of the Greek-speaking Fathers, Patrologia Graeca, has  several writers who hail from Egypt; the most important ones are Clement of Alexandria (volumes 8 and 9), Origen (volumes 11–17), Athanasius (volumes 25–28), the Desert Fathers (volume 40) and Cyril of Alexandria (volumes 68–77).

Note that the Patrologia Graeca has all the writings then known from 1st to 15th Century theologians writing in Greek in any subject, so there is substantially more in there than simply views on afterlife; that the version composed by Migne has side-by-side versions in Latin and Greek (but not English), so we'd have to look elsewhere for translations of those in these languages; and that particularly in the case of Clement and Origen, part of their writings is considered heretical (generally having a Neo-Platonist slant).  So tread with care.


Was the account of eating forbidden fruit a metaphor? What is the established church's (Church of England's) view on the theology of the eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil as being a metaphor for the act of questioning God's judgement and requirement for acquiescent obedience?

The Church of England doesn't generally have a published doctrinal stance on this sort of thing.
However, there is a passage in the Catechism which might be relevant.

What is thy duty towards God?
My duty towards God is to believe in him, to fear him, and to love him, with all my heart, with all my mind, with all my soul, and with all my strength; to worship him, to give him thanks, to put my whole trust in him, to call upon him, to honour his holy Name and his Word, and to serve him truly all the days of my life.

Eve, and Adam, certainly didn't follow that: by disobeying, they did not put their whole trust in God. Whether that turns the story of the apple into a metaphor can only be determined by the individual — the Church of England holds that it's reasonable to believe that the first few chapters of Genesis are literally true and it's reasonable to believe they are allegory or metaphor.
Acquiescent obedience would imply simply being an automaton. No-one is an automaton; God gave Man free-will, and he's used it. It was the basis for the Fall in the first place.
The Catechism continues:

What is thy duty towards thy Neighbour?
My duty towards my Neighbour is to love him as myself, and to do to all men as I would they should do unto me: To love, honour, and succour my father and mother: To honour and obey the Queen, and all that are put in authority under her: To submit myself to all my governors, teachers, spiritual pastors and masters: To order myself lowly and reverently to all my betters: To hurt nobody by word nor deed: To be true and just in all my dealing: To bear no malice nor hatred in my heart: To keep my hands from picking and stealing, and my tongue from evil-speaking, lying, and slandering: To keep my body in temperance, soberness, and chastity: Not to covet nor desire other men's goods; but to learn and labour truly to get mine own living, and to do my duty in that state of life, unto which it shall please God to call me.

This certainly sounds like "acquiescent obedience", but bear in mind that this was written in the seventeenth century for young people coming to confirmation (and it had to be learned by heart!). These two questions follow directly after the recitation of the Ten Commandments and their distillation into the two Dominical commandments, Love God and Love thy Neighbour.
God's will for mankind is to love God and love one's fellow-man. The Catechism makes it clear that there is no greater calling, since it is God's; is that "acquiescent obedience"?


Can more recent revelation from LDS prophets nullify or change official Mormon scripture? When an LDS prophet speaks, if what he says is different than canonized LDS scripture, do the words of the prophet take precedence?

Are you referring to anything specifically?  If you can provide a specific instance, that might be more informative.

In short: the answers are: Nullify, no.  Takes precedence, yes.

For example, polygamy is an eternal law.  And although it is not practiced today, it has been practiced as noted in the Bible (Genesis 16:3; 25:1; 29:21-30; 30:3-4, 9), spoken of in the Book of Mormon: (Jacob 2:30), and practiced in the beginnings of the LDS church.  However, the prophet in 1890, President Woodruff, wrote a Manifesto which lifted the commandment to practice plural marriage LDS.org topic: Polygamy. In that instance, the prophet didn't "nullify" the law, because those who had practiced it would still be sealed in heaven, however the practice on earth was stopped because the Lord commanded it.

In general, scriptures were written by prophets, who received the revelation from God, and the words of the living prophets are considered scripture: "In addition to [the] four books of scripture, the inspired words of our living prophets become scripture to us. Their words come to us through conferences, the Liahona or Ensign magazine, and instructions to local priesthood leaders. “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God” (Articles of Faith 1:9)." LDS Gospel Principles

Revelation from the living prophets are spoken as if from God.  (D&C 1:38) Also, God does not change.  (1 Nephi 10:18).  Therefore, the revelation and the scriptures are from God, and God does not change, though he may give some specific instruction to certain people at different times, it doesn't nullify scripture.

This pattern is shown when Christ declared that the law of Moses was fulfilled in Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

In an interesting address by a modern prophet (an apostle at the time) to the students at BYU in 1980, President Benson said, "Beware of those who would set up the dead prophets against the living prophets, for the living prophets always take precedence." Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet


How is Christian worship different than Christian religion? I'm afraid I may have slunk to the depths of troll question engineering, but I'm having a hard time with this answer.

According to some facebook meme

it is "dictionarily" invalid to argue that "sanctity" is a state that can be enforced by the government.

I attempted to call this particular facebook personality out on the carpet by saying that their definition of religious was invalid; that it did not include worship.

I've been hearing a lot about this recently on Relevant Radio concerning the redefinition of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to mean literally, freedom of worship, instead of freedom of religion.

Did any of the Popes write on this?  What is Christian religion over and above Christian worship and why must it be protected?

The biggest issue I can see in America is the frequent confusion of Christian marriage and Governmental marriage (which hints at a greater confusion between America and God, but that's another topic for another day.)

From a Christian perspective, marriage is defined as a covenant between a man and a woman to honor and love each other, and treat the other as better than oneself until one of them should die.  The relationship between the two in marriage should represent the relationship between Christ and the Church in how it operates, and thus, point to Christ and his love.  Ultimately, the governmental definition of marriage shouldn't matter at all from a Christian perspective.

The crux of the problem is that American Christians have, for too long, viewed things as though Christianity was primarily made for marriage, and not marriage for Christianity.  Visit a large singles group in the Bible belt in the US, and you'll see what I mean.  It becomes the ultimate desire of the average church-going single to find a mate, not to worship God.  This kind of attitude begets a Christianity that doesn't seek after God, so much as it seeks after happiness in marriage, which means people are seeking earthly things instead of the creator who created those earthly things.  This kind of seeking for earthly things ultimately fails.  It's like C.S. Lewis' quote: "Aim at heaven and you will get earth thrown in. Aim at earth and you get neither."  And of course, when two Christians, looking to their spouse for happiness ultimately find that they're not fulfilled in that search, their marriage looks no different than a non-Christian marriage.  Not understanding the true meaning of marriage (to represent Christ and the church: Ephesians 5:22-33), these people view marriage as a religion unto itself, and attribute the worship of it accordingly.

So the question in my mind is: what is the difference between Christian marriage and any other marriage?  Should we even care what non-Christians (including the government) do?   I don't think we should.  As Christians, our focus should be more on making sure our own representation of Christ and the Church, through our marriage, is so clear, that it shines before men and points to Jesus.

As for the United States, the right to worship as one sees fit ought to be protected, as it's part of the constitution, but I see nothing in any proposed constitutional redefinitions of marriage that would ultimately prevent someone the right to worship as he sees fit.  Unless, of course the object being worshiped is the Governmental institution marriage, in which case, yeah, you've got a problem.

And to answer the basic question at the end: I think Christian religion and Christian worship cannot be completely separate.  Romans 12:1 says that our spiritual act of worship is to present our bodies as a living sacrifice.  I think it's possible to practice the Christian religion without practicing Christian worship.  All you need to do to do that is do "Christian" things, but proper Christian worship is recognizing Christ's ability to save us from our own depravity, and then glorifying God for having had sent his Son for us.  I don't think, however, it's possible to practice Christian worship without practicing some semblance of the Christian religion, which, in it's purest form, is glorifying God... be it through marriage or through some other means.


Can Christians accept prayers from other religions? For example, can a Buddhist prays for a Christian and let the person know like health and peace? If yes/no, where is it written in the Bible.

First, I commend the goodwill you demonstrate toward your Christian friend.  You obviously want to give something that your friend can appreciate.
My answer below tries to orient you to make your prayer gift to be well suited to a Christian so it will be well received by a Christian, by considering who a Christian God is, who Jesus is, and what a Christian needs when others pray for them.
Orientation to Christian God and Prayer needs
The most important starting point to keep in mind is that in Christianity prayer is always directed to God who is a REAL, conscious being, separate from our own consciousness.  He is not a projection, not another modality of our consciousness / psychology, but a real being out there.

Christians believe there is One Supreme Creator God who is in control and more powerful than

all other gods (whether they exist or not),
all angels and demons and all other kinds of spiritual beings
all human beings (whether still living, or in between reincarnation, in heaven, in purgatory, etc.)

Christians believe this Supreme God knows all our thoughts, see Ps 139:2.  So of course He can hear all prayers by non Christians, whether addressed to a lesser god, or to Himself under another name (for example, Moslems call this God by the name "Allah").

There are several Old Testament examples of people who worship a lesser god BUT who acknowledged the existence of the God of Israel and even knew His name (YHWH, denoted as small caps Lᴏʀᴅ in English translations of the Bible).  Christians and Jews believe that sometimes this Supreme God stirred the hearts of those non-Israelites to pray, bless, or do good to the Israelites.  For example:

God moved the heart of Cyrus, king of Persia, to grant exiled Jews to return to Jerusalem.  See Ezra 1:2-3:

“This is what King Cyrus of Persia says: “The Lᴏʀᴅ, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth. He has appointed me to build him a Temple at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Any of you who are his people may go to Jerusalem in Judah to rebuild this Temple of the Lᴏʀᴅ, the God of Israel, who lives in Jerusalem. And may your God be with you!"

Babylon King Nebuchadnezzar acknowledged that Israel's God was more powerful than his god after his dream's interpretation by Daniel came true, in which Nebuchadnezzar was humbled and then restored by God, so he sent a message acknowledging Israel's God to all his subjects (at the time when this happened, around 600 BC, Babylon was the most powerful empire in the world).  See Daniel 4:34-36:

“After this time had passed, I, Nebuchadnezzar, looked up to heaven. My sanity returned, and I praised and worshiped the Most High and honored the one who lives forever: 'His rule is everlasting, and his kingdom is eternal.  All the people of the earth are nothing compared to him. He does as he pleases among the angels of heaven and among the people of the earth.
No one can stop him or say to him, ‘What do you mean by doing these things?’  When my sanity returned to me, so did my honor and glory and kingdom. My advisers and nobles sought me out, and I was restored as head of my kingdom, with even greater honor than before."

If the person you are praying for is a true Christian, this Christian will be under the protection of this supreme God and this Christian can be assured through faith that he/she is counted right now as one of His beloved sons/daughters who after death are eligible for eternal life in heaven if he/she perserves to the end.  Therefore:

A more helpful prayer for your Christian friend will then to wish what a Christian will need in his/her earthly journey.  If you pray for health or peace it will be much better if you understand what health or peace means to a Christian, which is different from what other religions understand them to be.  To Christians, there is a notion of spiritual health which is freedom from temptation to sin, which is much more critical than physical health.  Also the Christian notion of peace is a state of heart where there is no enmity between the individual and this Supreme God.

Even if your notion of peace or health are NOT yet Christian in concept, the goodwill expressed toward your Christian friend will not go unnoticed by this Supreme God and He can potentially reward you if we take this Abrahamic blessing (Gen 12:3a) as a hint:

I will bless those who bless you and curse those who treat you with contempt.

In a Christian understanding, Jesus is the incarnation of the aforementioned God of Israel himself, which means after Jesus's resurrection Christians no longer call him Teacher / Rabbi, but with titles appropriate for the Son of the living God such as Lord (King) and Saviour.  A Christian can also call Jesus a Friend or a Brother, whom Christians should imitate so we can also have His character, especially in His relationship to God the Father and to fellow human beings.  You can therefore pray so that Jesus will help your friend's heart to be more conformed with His.

Conclusion
In summary, here are 2 points to help make your prayer gift to be well received by your Christian friend:

address it properly: either to

God the Father (the Supreme God above all gods, Creator of the universe) or to the
Lord Jesus Christ (Lord over all human beings)

pray for what a Christian needs (by using Christian-specific concepts).  Examples:

Spiritual health: so God helps your friend fight temptation and to be more conformed to Jesus's character
Peace: so your friend confess all sins to God to be reconciled
Increase in love: so your friend improves spiritually by loving God and others more
Persevere in hard times: so your friend would not lose faith and hope
etc.


When is the first time in church history we find a prayer ending with "in Jesus' name, amen"? It is commonplace in Christianity today to close prayers "in Jesus' name, amen".  I don't see any prayer in the apostolic writings prayed in this way.  When does this first emerge in history?

A definitive answer to this question will be elusive, but here are some preliminary findings that give some idea and hopefully inspire more research.
As we'll see, the exact English phrase, "in Jesus' name, amen," appears to be a fairly recent development, as do its variations.  But it appears earlier in other languages, notably Latin and German.  Thus, we'll follow this outline:

Phrase in translation (German, Latin)
Traditional forms in English
Exact phrase and its variations in English

Phrase in translation
The earliest example of something similar to "in Jesus' name, amen" that I've found comes from the 5th century, in Latin:

In nomine Iesu Christi, Amen. (source)
In Jesus Christ's name, amen.

And in the early 8th century:

In nomine Domini nostri Iesu Christi, amen. (source)
In the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, amen.

Interestingly, the form also turns up much earlier in German than in English.  For example, in 1538:

In den Namen Jesu Amen. (source)

And in 1687:

Im Namen Jesu! Amen! (source)

Traditional forms in English
Prayers using the trinitarian formula – "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" – can be found early in church history, and it's thus not surprising that early English prayer books used it.  More interesting is the frequent ending of prayers with a variation on "Jesus Christ."  Over 50 prayers in the 1689 Book of Common Prayer use his name in a phrase immediately before "Amen," such as:

through Jesus Christ our Lord.  Amen.  (page 167)
through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.  Amen.  (183)
but only the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ.  Amen.  (190)
for the honor of our Advocate and Mediator, Jesus Christ. Amen. (40)

Yet the phrase in question does not appear.  Nor does it appear in the popular non-conformist Method for Prayer (1710) by Matthew Henry.  The influence of such works, particularly the BCP, may have been a significant factor in the relatively late appearance of "in Jesus' name, amen" in English.
Phrase in English
Definitively identifying the earliest use of this phrase in English would require the use of more corpora than I have at my disposal.  The University of Michigan's Middle English corpus yields no results, so I turn then to Google Books.  There, the earliest variation of this phrase in English appears in 1778:

All which we beg for the sake and in the name of Jesus Christ.  Amen. (source)

And the exact phrase for the first time only in 1840:

We ask all in Jesus' name.  Amen. (source)

Summary
I haven't uncovered written evidence for the use of this phrase in English prior to the 18th century, even though it appears in other European languages much earlier – as early as the 5th century in Latin.
It's certainly possible that this lack of evidence is due to a limited written record (or access to it).  But the fact that my sources have German instances of this phrase in the 16th and 17th centuries, but no English ones, suggests that the influence of early English prayer books helped ensure that "in Jesus' name, amen" was not commonly employed.  Apparently only after Protestantism split further and revivals spread did the phrase come into common usage and eventually become ubiquitous.


Jesus' sacrifice covers our eternal hell? I believe that Jesus' death (his punishment) is a substitute for our death (our punishment) which allows us into heaven--Jesus paid the price for our sins. I also believe that this substitutionary payment works.

However, I am slightly confused as to how Jesus temporal sacrifice paid our everlasting punishment.

Unsaved people are punished for their sins by being sent to hell--forever.

  8 Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.

Matt 18:8 (KJV)

Our punishment (we were unsaved) was taken by Jesus. Jesus' torture on the cross was horrible; I am not arguing against that. But how does Jesus single death on the cross pay for my eternal hell?

Is there some aspect of His suffering that I have missed?

Jesus' death was sufficient simply because DEATH is the punishment for our sins, not suffering. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Savior must suffer for a long time to cover our sins, only His death.

If you look at all these verses, we'll see that "Christ died" and it is enough: http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?Criteria=christ+died&t=KJV#s=s_primary_0_1

The punishment the law required for our sins was not the whippings on His back or even hell, but death. Jesus’ substitutionary death perfectly fulfilled the offerings of the OT.

In the OT, the sinner needed to bring an offering to the priest to atone for his sins. It was enough for the animal to die, not for the animal to suffer, and suffer, and suffer.


Since Jesus death paid our sin debt in full, why do Christians still die? In Genesis chapter  two God places the burden of death on man's sin(disobedience of God).
Genesis 2:17  KJV

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

When Jesus died on the cross all of our sins were given to him and his death paid the penalty for our transgressions.
Since Jesus suffered death for us why do Christians who have given their sins to Jesus on the cross still die?
1st John 2:2  KJV

And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Galatians 1:4  KJV

Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:

Romans chapter 5   KJV

12  Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
17  For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

Gen 2:17 reference is for the second death not the first.

The fact that we are still dying in spite of Jesus dying for us, shows that death is more than what we know it to be in everyday meaning. There is something called "second death" in the Bible.

  Rev.20:6 “Blessed and holy is the one who takes part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years.”

It worth noting how clearly this second death is mentioned at Rev. 2:11; 20:6, 14; 21:8. One of the first things God told Adam was regarding the forbidden fruit. He said:

  Gen.2:17, “but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will surely die.”

The same day they were supposed to have been paying the penalty for their disobedience; the penalty was death. But they didn't die the same day, because:

  John 3:16 For this is the way   God loved the world: He gave his one and only   Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish   but have eternal life.

A substitute was already planned and therefore the penalty of sin was differed. When Adam died at the age of 930 years he was not paying the penalty of sin. Adam's probationary period of overcoming sin was over at nine hundred and thirty years; his lifespan ended.

In fact the Bible uses another word “sleep” many a time, when talking about the death that comes at the end of a lifetime. Talking about Lazarus' death, Jesus himself called it sleep. He said:

  John 11:11-14 After he said this, he added, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep.   But I am going there to awaken him.”  Then the disciples replied,   “Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will recover.”  (Now Jesus had been talking about   his death, but they thought he had been talking about real sleep.) Then Jesus told them plainly, “Lazarus has died,

This word "sleep" has been used several times, in reference to the first death or the natural death that all have to face in this sinful world. (See Job 14:10-12, 1 Thessalonians 4:15, 16). All the people who ever died on planet earth died only the natural death or the first death; and first death is the consequence (natural result) of sin-because of Adam's fall-and not the wages (punishment) of sin.

The death of Christ and also His resurrection were divine acts, and not natural acts. Death had no power on Him, as He did not sin. For us to die is natural, for Christ it was not. He was doing something that otherwise would not have happened. Just before Jesus could go to Calvary, this is what He said about Satan:

  John 14:30 I will not speak with you much longer, for the ruler of this world is coming.  He has no power over me.

Satan had no power over Christ, as Christ did not yield to temptation. He had to lay His life down as a voluntary act for our salvation, and He did it. He was paying the penalty of the human race on the cruel Cross. He was dying the death that we deserved. Paul wrote: ...so that by God’s grace he would experience death on behalf of everyone. (Hebrew 2:9)

First death and second death:

The death that Christ died was the second death. The first death is a natural consequence of sin. Whether one is a believer or unbeliever, the first death is for all, whether a saint or a sinner. It is the close of probationary time, either to make it or break it to Heaven. When Adam and Eve were told that they would die the day they ate the fruit, it was a reference to the second death (the eternal extinction), not the first death.

The first death physically destroys the body, but it is not an eternal destruction, as there will be a resurrection. But the second death is the eternal destruction of the person. So the second death is the real death, the complete death. The first death has only a part of the second death in it. The second death has the first death and more in it.

  (Rev 20:6, 14, 15; 21:8), and not "first and second death", as the second death is the complete death.

Those who die the second death have no resurrection. But Jesus rose from the dead even though He died the second death. Well, because He was sinless, He was dying a substitution death. He was not dying for His sin (He did no sin), but for the sins of the others (the whole world).

When we die the first death, we can afford to smile and die, and even sing while burning at the stake, because we know it is only the first death, and there is a resurrection. But when Jesus was dying the death on Calvary, He cried in bitter agony:

  My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? (Matthew 27:46)

But when we die our natural death, we don't cry that way, as God does not forsake us. It is at the final death, the second death, when people pay the wages of sin, they would feel the bitter agony of being forever cut off from God and from life, and then all will cry and weep and gnash their teeth.

When Christ bore the sins of the world on Him, He could not, for that moment, see beyond the portals of the tomb, as it was total darkness within Him and around Him too. Only by faith He knew that resurrection was possible for Him while He was bearing our sins upon Himself. And that's how He gave hope to the thief, and that's how He committed His breath into the hands of His Heavenly Father and died. And lo! And behold! On the third day our Lord conquered the grave as He conquered death! Listen to the Victor:

  Rev. 1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

#Apologies for this long answer.


If a sin can be dispensed, is it really a sin? Question

During the Coronavirus pandemic many Catholic bishops have decided to dispense the faithful from the obligation of attending Sunday Mass.  The standard teaching is that missing Sunday Mass constitutes a mortal sin (according to things like CCC #2181).

Consider two kinds of mortal sin: murder and missing Mass.  The latter can be dispensed whereas the former cannot.  Common sense would seem to say that if something is a sin then it is a sin regardless of what the Church says.  Murder is a sin and the Church cannot "dispense" someone from the obligation to not murder.  But if the Church cannot dispense someone from a sin, then how can the Church dispense someone from the obligation to attend Mass given the catechism's admonition that to miss is a "grave sin."  If a sin can be dispensed, is it really a sin?  Or more precisely: If an act which is usually considered a mortal sin can become non-sinful with a dispensation, is it really a mortal sin?

What I am asking

If a sin can be dispensed, is it really a sin?
Does the Church have the power to declare that something is now a sin which was not previously a sin, and to declare that something is no longer a sin which was previously a sin?
Why are the sins of murder and missing Mass treated so differently?  What is the fundamental difference between the two?  Do they have the same degree of severity?

What I am not asking

I am not asking about what constitutes a mortal sin (e.g. knowledge, freedom, consent, etc.).
I am not asking about whether the Church has the power to judge whether something is or is not a sin.  For example, the Church judges masturbation and contraception to be sinful.  This question is not about whether She can judge something to be sinful, but whether She can dispense the faithful from an obligation to avoid sinful activity.

"If a sin can be dispensed, is it really a sin?"

No, a sin which is dispensed of could never be a sin, because a sin is an offense to God, and offending God can never be excused.

"Does the Church have the power to declare that something is now a sin which was not previously a sin, and to declare that something is no longer a sin which was previously a sin?"

No, the Church cannot dispense someone from their moral duty as creatures of God to avoid sinful activity.

However, the Church can remove the obligation to do something in a certain way (i.e. attend Mass as a species of activity which falls under the genus 'keeping holy or separate the Sabbath day'). By removing the obligation, they remove the possibility of contravening any law, because it is no longer binding.

In this case, the Church has not modified what is intrinsically sinful (excusing people from offending God), but have modified what Christians are bound by obedience to the Church to do.

To use @Geremia's example: if a parent tells their child not to eat a cookie, it is wrong to for that child to eat the cookie. If a parent then permits the child to eat a cookie, then it is not wrong for the child to eat the cookie. In this instance, eating cookies, or not eating cookies is utterly irrelevant - only the obedience to one's parents.

Similarly, every Christian has the moral duty to obey the commandments of the Church as their legitimate authority and teacher - and per the perennial trope, mother. Attending or not attending Mass is not intrinsically or inseparably related to keeping holy the Sabbath day, as is proven by the sheer fact that the Mass did not exist until Calvary - one thousand years after the commandment was issued by God.

Attending Mass is one of many ways to keep holy the Sabbath day, and thus is not necessarily commanded by the commandment to keep holy the Sabbath day (i.e. where Christians have always viewed Sunday as the new Sabbath of Christians).

Thus, the Church, in her prudence, or even simply by her authority, has the right to bind or loose the obligation to attend Mass on Sunday, without touching the sinfulness of obedience, which remains, whether one is bound by obedience to attend Mass on Sunday, or freed from the obligation by the Church. To date, the Church has not seen any good reason to dispense anyone from attending Mass every Sunday except for relatively extreme travel requirements, illness, or, apparently, in times of the current crisis.

"Why are the sins of murder and missing Mass treated so differently? What is the fundamental difference between the two? Do they have the same degree of severity?"

A mortal sin is simply any sin which leads to spiritual death (hence "mortal," which means "causing death"). This doesn't imply that all sins which are mortal have the same severity, incur the same punishment in hell (or temporal punishment, if forgiven). A child abuser will incur more punishment for his sin, than someone who elects not to travel to attend Mass because he has a bad case of the sniffles. For reasons that should be obvious. Murder is obviously worse than wilfully lying about a non-trivial matter (such as making a false oath). Homosexual fornication is obviously worse than heterosexual fornication, because it involves at least one more degree of deviation from God-ordained sexual relations than does heterosexual. Etc.

That is, while venial and mortal sins designate two manners of sinning, they don't imply that all venial, or all mortal, sins are the same as every other, or carry the same penalty.


According to Roman Catholicism, at what point does original sin affect the human soul? CCC 366 teaches that every soul is immediately created by God and not produced by the parents.

The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not "produced" by the parents

CCC 365 states that soul and body are not two separate aspects of man but form an inseparable unity

in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

CCC 404 says that original sin is transmitted by propagation, through the parents, of a deprived human nature

Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice.

If human nature is an inseparable unity of body and soul and, if original sin is passed through a deprived human nature, then it must be concluded that, in human nature both body and soul are equally deprived.  If God immediately creates each soul, what is it's state at the moment of it's creation:  Is it A) created already deprived or does it B) share equally in the deprivation of the flesh once united with it?
If A, which I doubt will be the answer, then original sin is imparted to the soul at creation rather than inherited.
If B then it is actually the flesh only that transmits original sin.
Is there a third logical option that this question is missing?

Human soul created and united to the body simultaneously
Pope Pius IX, in his dogmatic definition of the Immaculate Conception, Ineffabilis Deus, stated that the Blessed Virgin Mother's soul was free from original sin

in primo instanti creationis atque infusionis in corpusin the first instant of [its] creation and infusion into (union with) the body

"Creation" and "infusion" are simultaneous.
"Instanti" here is the singular ablative of "insto" (instant); there is one instant (not one for creation and another for infusion
This is St. Thomas's teaching, too (Summa Theologia I q. 118 a. 3 co.):

we must simply confess that souls were not created before bodies, but are created at the same time as they are infused into them.simpliciter confitendum est quod animæ non sunt creatæ ante corpora, sed simul creantur cum corporibus infunduntur.

Thus, since there is no duration of time between the soul's creation and union with the body, there is no immaculate soul first and later, once united to the body, a soul stained by original sin.
This doesn't mean God taints the soul with original sin when He creates it, though; God is not a cause of sin.


What assures Christians that they alone are saved? Christians claim that "they are saved by the sacrifice of Jesus." But there are also members of many other faiths who claim that they are saved. For example, apart from affirming Jesus to be the Messiah, the Qurʾān explicitly claims by name that those who believe Jesus as God are disbelievers. In addition, Judaism generally considers Christianity to be idolatry or avodah zarah, since Christianity generally affirms Jesus to be God.

What is the concrete, Biblical basis that assures that it is this specific group of Christians like the modern claimants of Christianity that they are indeed saved, compared to other faiths who also have their own scriptural basis for believing they are saved?

First question to ask is what are Christians being saved from or for? Thankfully someone has saved me time from having to write that answer up (Thanks @Caleb):

What does it mean to "be saved"

Again, I would promote the necessity of relationship with God so that a follower knows the nature of God well enough to know what His desire for us. This is summed up in the famous and oft quoted verse John 3:16:

  16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His [a]only begotten Son,
  that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

Caleb answered what we are saved from, my last quote tells us that God does not want to lose any of us, my next part will explain the part that causes us to be in the firing line of Gods wrath.....

Rom 3:23

  23 for all [a]have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

This means we have missed the mark, we have FAILED the test, the Law we have broken. When the Law is broken justice is required. God is a just God so cannot simply ignore that we have sinned and grant mercy, otherwise He is not just. We, as humans cannot remove the need for justice, just as we cannot remove the stain of sin, any attempt to do so is futile:

Isaiah 64:6:

  6 For all of us have become like one who is unclean, And all our
  righteous deeds are like a filthy garment; And all of us wither like a
  leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.

We cannot base our idea of righteousness as the grading system that God will use, for His standards are far higher than ours.

How do you ascertain the standard of God? Would Mother Teresa make it based purely upon the standard she demonstrated? Would Hitler based upon his actions meet the requirements of Gods standards? No, surely not in the case of Hitler, but also Mother Teresa, as amazing as she was, also fell short of the requirements that would make her salvation possible.

Long story short, man cannot do anything in his own works to gain salvation. Justice IS required by and sought by God: Psalm 94

So, hopefully I have established from a Christian perspective why we are in the firing line of Gods wrath. Now to be sure of salvation in Christ as a Christian:

So, as Christians believe that it is through Christ that salvation is made possible, because our sinful ways and the requirement for justice made outside intervention a necessity, because mere man was unable to undertake this correction for themselves. Jesus was able to satisfy the demand for justice so that all that was required was for the mercy and grace of God to have a chance to win back from Satan the hearts of man.

To be sure of their salvation a Christian needs to have a relationship with God because then you are learning of His nature such as God cannot lie:

Titus 1:2

  2 in the hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised
  [b]long ages ago,

He loves us: John 3:16

If then, Christians agree that Paul's words are divinely inspired scripture (and remember God cannot lie) then it is plain and simple for Christians to be certain of their salvation:

Romans 10:9-10

  9 [a]that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in
  your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10
  for with the heart a person believes, [b]resulting in righteousness,
  and with the mouth he confesses, [c]resulting in salvation.

Furthermore, a Christian believes they are being saved so they can live, but they can only live if they do not lead their live according to the flesh, but by the Spirit.

Romans 8:13

  13 for if you are living according to the flesh, you [a]must die; but
  if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you
  will live.

A Christian knows if they are living by the flesh because they act according to their own desire, pursuing their own agenda, but ultimately not seeking to know God more and more.

So, as a Christian, to be sure of your salvation; do not simply live to an acceptable level (i.e., the Law or to mans standards), but rather live by the Spirit.