Does the LDS Church prohibit the use of caffeine? I've heard it said a number of times that Mormons think it is wrong to consume caffeine.  This would seem to naturally require abstinence from a number of beverages, such as coffee, black teas, and some soda/pop/coke.  But other foods have caffeine in them as well, like chocolate, which, from what I can tell, are regularly consumed by Mormons.

Some years ago (15–20?) a Mormon friend explained that the caffeine in chocolate is somehow different chemically than the caffeine in coffee, and that this was why Mormons eat chocolate but don't drink coffee.  I have no idea if this is true, and I don't really care, but it seemed to confirm a prohibition on caffeine by the LDS Church.

However, after a bit of research, the basis for this restriction seems to be the following line in the Doctrines and Covenants, §89, which makes no reference to caffeine:

  9 And again, hot drinks are not for the body or belly.

Has the LDS Church officially expounded on the meaning of this text, or of any other texts that may relate to caffeine?  That is, officially, does this text forbid:

Hot black tea (hot drink, caffeinated)
Hot milk (hot drink, not caffeinated)
Iced black tea (not hot drink, caffeinated)
Soda/pop/coke (not hot drink, caffeinated)
Chocolate (not hot drink, caffeinated)

What is the recent and current teaching of the LDS Church on this matter?  Has there been any change or clarification in the last 50 years or so?  A brief historical overview would help me put my Mormon friend's chocolate comments into context.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that our bodies are temples where the Holy Ghost can dwell (1 Corinthians 6:19–20) and that they were given to us as a gift from God, therefore we are expected to take care of them.

The Word of Wisdom was originally given in 1833 as a word of counsel and is found in Doctrine and Covenants 89. Later prophets have reemphasized the Word of Wisdom as a law of health and today it is set forth as a commandment that all church members are expected to follow.

Because the Word of Wisdom is the most well-known health-related commandment, often members group related commandments and the general idea of taking care of one's body into the Word of Wisdom (for example, things like using moderation; establishing healthy sleep habits; warnings against recreational drugs, relying too heavily on medicine have to do with our health but are not mentioned in the Word of Wisdom).

Joseph Smith, who received the Word of Wisdom, and prophets since his time have stated that "hot drinks" means tea and coffee. This includes decaffeinated coffee, and cold coffee and tea. It does not include chocolate, hot chocolate, or warm milk.

Often tea is further interpreted by Latter-day Saints to be any drink derived from the plant Camellia sinensis – like green tea, black tea, and iced tea – but there's still debate around mate, herbal teas, etc. The Church has not officially clarified beyond "coffee and tea."

Some members of the Church abstain from caffeine – you will find that it varies from family to family. This is an effort to take care of the body and likely stems from the fact that one of the obvious ingredients in coffee and tea is caffeine. Caffeine is, in fact, a drug. However, the Word of Wisdom, as set forth in D&C 89, does not specifically prohibit caffeine, nor has the Church officially taught that members should not drink caffeine.


What is the Protestant interpretation of Philippians 3:12? Protestantism generally teaches that salvation is by faith alone, through grace.

Paul seem to make a case for this in Philippians 3:9:

  and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith (ESV)

but later on verse 12, he says:

  Not that I have already obtained, or am already made perfect: but I press on, if so be that I may lay hold on that for which also I was laid hold on by Christ Jesus.

Does that not seem to indicate that we cannot be sure of our salvation, and that works are also implied?

Paul is explaining that yes we are saved by grace through faith because of Christ's faithfulness (Phil 3:9), but goes on to emphasize continuing in that (Phil 3:12).  He's not contradicting himself.

He's already explained that works righteousness is dung to him.  But in Christ we are perfect, yet because we live in this world not yet perfect.  We continue to strive upward.

The reality is that people, being the knuckleheads that we are, would take our liberty, our righteousness in Christ, and use it as an excuse to sin.

  Romans 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?

Recall with Thessalonica how some brothers interpreted their salvation to sit by in idle.

  2 Thess. 3:6, 11 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. ... For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.

Or recall the messes at Corinth and elsewhere.

It's a fine line to know you have no righteousness but in Christ's and to work at that, rather than be what you were or take advantage of that.

PS  As regards the tri-theology of justification, sanctification, and washing, Paul is applying the same idea in Philippians as he did in Corinthians.  Bold my emphasis.

  1 Cor. 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Justified is "to be made right or righteous".  Passive voice.  It is done to you.

Sanctified is "to be made holy or set aside".  Passive voice.  It is done to you.

Washed is "your visible testimony to the internal spiritual change (born-again as justified and sanctified)".  Middle voice.  Something you do and continue to do.

So again, the idea is simply that you are saved by grace in Christ's righteousness, not your own, but your appearance matters also.  It's like a bath and being a zillionaire.  Just because one is rich doesn't mean one should ignore his outward appearance and its influence.

As an aside to try to explain what happened, I'd suggest that somewhere along the line the idea of water baptism (washing) as salvific became like justification, as a one-time occurrence; thus rendering the necessity of your working for sanctification.  Instead, one was a sinner, but upon salvation one is justified and is sanctified (done to you), but you must still walk the earth, not quite finished and thus not requiring your washing yourself with the word, Spirit, etc.


Why do Kingdom Halls have no windows? I've noticed that most Kingdom Halls--the meeting place for Jehovah's Witnesses--have no windows in the building.  What is the reason for this?  Is there a Biblical basis for it or does it come from a specific church teaching?  If so, I would be interested in a citation of the official church position on this.

It is not always the case with all Kingdom Halls. In fact there are many with windows. About as many as reasons for having no windows. A few common answers are found below:

For security reasons. Normally they do not have a parish residence nearby to keep a watch on their belongings. This is a bigger problem in larger cities.
Cost benefits. Windows are more expensive and time consuming to install. Plus they are not very well insulated raising heating and cooling costs.
Volunteer labor. Kingdom Halls are built by volunteer Jehovah's Witnesses within a 3 day time-span: Friday thru Sunday. As mentioned above, windows are time consuming to install, and with a 3 day limit....

So, many people would answer "To save money", which is kind of a reason behind all the answers.

Edit:
Thought I might as well just put in an image of a Kingdom Hall with windows (taken from this Wikipedia page):


To whom do the Eastern Orthodox Church's believe the "Keys to the Kingdom" were given by Jesus? "I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind
  on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth
  shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:19)

This is the main verse that Papal Supremacy (the final authority of the Pope to bind or loose) rests upon.  The Roman Church's interpretation of the contextual significance of this verse obviously differs from that of Orthodoxy.

The footnote of the New American Bible says the following about this verse:

  The keys to the kingdom of heaven: the image of the keys is probably
  drawn from Is 22:15–25 where Eliakim, who succeeds Shebnah as master
  of the palace, is given “the key of the house of David,” which he
  authoritatively “opens” and “shuts” (Mt 22:22). Whatever you
  bind…loosed in heaven: there are many instances in rabbinic literature
  of the binding-loosing imagery. Of the several meanings given there to
  the metaphor, two are of special importance here: the giving of
  authoritative teaching, and the lifting or imposing of the ban of
  excommunication. It is disputed whether the image of the keys and that
  of binding and loosing are different metaphors meaning the same thing.
  In any case, the promise of the keys is given to Peter alone. In Mt
  18:18 all the disciples are given the power of binding and loosing,
  but the context of that verse suggests that there the power of
  excommunication alone is intended. That the keys are those to the
  kingdom of heaven and that Peter’s exercise of authority in the church
  on earth will be confirmed in heaven show an intimate connection
  between, but not an identification of, the church and the kingdom of
  heaven.

This is one of the most (if not the most) divisive doctrines concerning the relationship between East and West.

It seems pretty clear to me, as the Catholic interpretive footnote denotes above, that Jesus was speaking directly to Peter, which implies that Peter is specifically given the "Keys to the Kingdom" (a.k.a. the final authority to bind and loose, a.k.a. Papal Supremacy).

To my knowledge, Eastern Orthodoxy differs from Catholicism concerning Peter's authority by teaching that:

A. Peter and his successors hold the highly dignified position of "first among equals" and not "Supreme Pontiff."

B. Infallibility rests not in the Chair of Peter, but in the decrees and canons of ecumenical councils only.

C. The doctrine of papal supremacy derives from the gradual usurpation of jurisdictional authority - emerging definitively around the 8th and 9th cent. and reaching its full implementation with the 1054AD schism which was immediately followed by the Crusades.

Who do the Eastern Orthodox Church's believe the "Keys to the Kingdom" where given to by Jesus?

I am specifically interested in answers from strictly an Orthodox standpoint.

The issue here is not Peter. Peter received the keys to the kingdom. Peter was the first leader of the entire church. The issue is with his successors. The Roman Catholic church decided that Peter's successor was not only head of the church in Rome but of the entire church. Eastern bishops took issue with this because they believed that the keys weren't ONLY given to Peter. (I'm deliberately glossing over the secular politics involved here.) Therefore, Linus had no authority over the entire church. And sadly, the absolute refusal of anyone on either side to give any ground on the issue means that there may never be any reconciliation.


According to the Catholic Church, what was the point of all the plagues? Did God really have to do all those plagues in order to get Moses' people free? Did each plague have a particular purpose? I heard about a documentary or hypothesis that only first or first few plagues were intended and then the remaining plagues, except the last one, just occurred naturally.

Even if we grant that all but the last plague were purposeful or natural, what was the point of killing innocent children, particularly the Pharaoh's son? Why not kill the Pharaoh and then have the son or regent rule and then have the next ruler of Egypt set Moses' people free? Why not send a bunch of angels to threaten the Pharaoh into releasing the Israelites or into offering fair wages?

I doubt this is relevant to the problem of evil as God specifically intervenes in human affairs in Egypt. Why all the violence though? It seems to make sense that an omnipotent, omniscient, all-good being who would intervene in human affairs would want to do so with little bloodshed unless there's a specific lesson that the being wants to impart on the Egyptians or Israelites or something of the sort. Maybe the Israelites wouldn't have appreciated God's efforts as much if it was that simple?

Also, I seem to recall from high school something about wanting to convert the Egyptians.

What does the Catholic Church say about this?

The ten plagues corresponded to ten of the major Gods of the Egyptians. The God of the Hebrews wasn't trying to convert anyone, but assert himself as the God above all other gods.

1) God of the Nile, Osiris & Hapi? Your river is blood.

2) Frog-Goddess of Fertility, Heka? You get frogs, you get frogs,
   everybody gets frogs.

3 & 4) Geb, the god of earth, and Khephi with the head of a fly? Your
   soil is now lice, with a super size side of flies.

5) Bull god Apis? Livestock struck down. (EDIT: Also, Hathor)

6) Thoth, the god of medicine and cleanliness? Boils everywhere.

7) Nut the sky goddes and Shu the wind god? Storms of hail & fire.

8) Seth, the god of crops and Isis, protector of the fields? Why don't
   you have some locusts.

9) Sun god Ra? Darkness.

10) Your Pharoah sells himself as a god, and his son will be a god after
   him? Kill the firstborn... but not just his, but everyone's
   firstborn.

(The Apostolic Vicariate of Southern Arabia holyspiritinteractive.net/youth/biblegeek/35.asp)

The God of the Hebrews was impacting the whole of the Egyptian society with those plagues, both physically and spiritually. At the same time, he was showing favor to his chosen people, sparing the people from all of the plagues, especially "Passing over" them on the tenth plague. The God of the Hebrews wanted to make a lasting impact on not only the people of Egypt, but everywhere else too - Remember, the reason Jericho wound themselves up tight is because they heard of what happened in Egypt. Following that, the reason the people of Gibeon presented themselves as travelers from far, far away is because of what God did in Jericho.

In our minds, the God of the Hebrews can kinda seem overkill. And it isn't just in Exodus, you also see it in:

Elijah's highly-successful barbecue in 1st Kings 18, where the
prohpet not only placed the offering, but soaked it to the point of
filling up the moat dug around the alter... and then YHWH cooks the
entire thing, to the point of even boiling the water in the trench.
When He institutes the cleansing of the land of Canaan, He says to
destroy everything of the inhabitants, not only the idols, but the
livestock and treasure as well... and when Achan defies this order in
Joshua 7, not only does he get stoned and burned, but also "his sons
and daughters, his cattle, donkeys and sheep, his tent and all that
he had".
Jesus doesn't politely show out the monylenders, rather making "a
scourge of cords, and drove them all out of the temple, with the
sheep and the oxen; and He poured out the coins of the money changers
and overturned their tables" in John 2.

And many, many various other places in Scripture. The church response to all this is that God is passionate about his own glory, and will shake anything that stands in the way to the foundations to crush it with his heel, from Babel in Genesis to the Beast in Revelation.


How do Biblical Unitarians understand what some theologians refer as the Kenosis in Philippians 2? Philippians 2:5-9 describes the attitude of humility, love, and service which Christ Jesus possessed while on earth:

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name...

There is much already said about what it means to "be in the form of God" and "equality with God" in the literature of both trinitarians and non-trinitarians.  See here for a start.  This question is not about those particular aspects of what some theologians, in expounding this passage, have termed "the Kenosis".
The question is regarding the notions of "emptying" and "taking the form of".  The passage seems to present that in order for Jesus to be found in the form of a servant he needed to empty himself.  More specifically, it states that he emptied himself by taking the form of a servant and being born in the likeness of a man.
If Jesus did not pre-exist his birth then:

By taking the form of a servant and being born in the likeness of a man he emptied himself of what, exactly?

How can one empty oneself by birth as a man if one does not pre-exist that birth?

Caveat: this is a difficult sentence in general and there is no settled translation.
However it's translated, it's easy to make a subtle assumption about the text that isn't actually there (although a straightforward inference coming from a trinitarian position).
In the article Philippians 2:6-8 the authors conclude

"The verse is not speaking either of Christ’s giving up his “Godhood”
at his incarnation or of his God-nature being willing to “hide” so
that his man-nature can show itself clearly. Rather, it is saying
something else. Scripture says Christ was the “image of God” (2 Cor.
4:4), and Jesus himself testified that if one had seen him, he had
seen the Father. Saying that Christ was in the “form” (outward
appearance) of God is simply stating that truth in another way. Unlike
Adam, who grasped at being like God (Gen. 3:5), Christ, the Last Adam,
“emptied himself” of all his reputation and the things due him as the
true child of the King. He lived in the same fashion as other men. He
humbled himself to the Word and will of God. He lived by “It is
written” and the commands of his Father. He did not “toot his own
horn,” but instead called himself “the son of man,” which, in the
Aramaic language he spoke, meant “a man.” He trusted God and became
obedient, even to a horrible and shameful death on a cross."

So it's not that there was time 1 'he empties himself' time 2 'he is born'.
To answer the questions

He emptied himself of all his reputation and the things due him as the true child of the King. He lived in the same fashion as other men.

"How can one empty oneself by birth[?]" The text doesn't quite say this, and Young's literal translation reads "but did empty himself, the form of a servant having taken, in the likeness of men having been made". So the Biblical Unitarians in the article quoted above would say it's a misreading of the text. The emptying doesn't happen before, or really even starting with his birth, but at some point in his life (presumably with a gradual increasing awareness as he grew up that he was the Messiah), most notably dying on the cross.


The other gospels not part of the Bible AFAIK the the writers of the NT are only Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter and Jude.

The writing of the other apostles, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthias, Simon abd James why are they not included as a gospel of the Bible?

I mean, according to the Bible they are inspired by the Holy Ghost and their writing must be also a source for truth, why are their writings or teachings not included at all?

And who is the author of Hebrews in the NT?

There are two matters wrapped up in this question.  Let me take them one at a time.
1.  How were the components ("books") of the NT Chosen?
The various books of the NT were chosen by the early church, essentially by consensus - they were clearly inspired and some published lists of these books.  Various church councils then put an official imprimatur on the final list.  The requirements for inclusion was always the same - a NT book had to have been written by a person who witnessed the events they recorded or at least spoke to the person who did.  All the current NT fit this criterion.
2.  Why were some writing excluded?
There are many writings that have been excluded and these fall into two broad categories:
(a) Writings of pious, Godly men who were not apostles or associates of Jesus such as, the writings of Clement, Polycarp, Hermas, etc.  These writing do not claim to be inspired and they might have been shocked to hear that their writings should be included in the Canon of Scripture
(b) Forgeries - writings of those who pretended to be someone else famous.  The Greek term for this is "pseudepigrapha" - a writing with a false title.  Nearly all in this category were written in the second century (or later) but masqueraded as though they are written by someone in the first century, an associate of Jesus.  These include: The Gospel of Mary, The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Peter, The Gospel of Barnabas, and many more.
I make no comment about who wrote Hebrews - that has a huge literature and I do not intend to extend it.  I refers the reader to some of that material elsewhere.


1 John Chapter 1 & 3 - Is there an apparent contradiction? I have often wondered why the author of 1 John, in the beginning of his letter, seems to claim that even though people have accepted Christ they will continue to sin, but two chapters later he seems to be making the opposite claim? I've never found an adequate explanation to this. Why is this?

1 John 1:8, 10: "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives."

1 John 3:9: "No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God."

In a case like this, it's best to go back to the original Greek.  As jrista pointed out, the key verb in 3:9 is the one your version translates as "continue to", in the greek "ποιέω".  This Greek Lexicon gives a lot of translations for this verb, including:

  to make; with the names of things made, to produce, construct, form, fashion, etc.; to be the authors of, the cause

This same verb is used in the immediately preceding verses, 3:7-8, which the NIV translates:

  Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is
  right is righteous, just as he is righteous. He who does what is
  sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the
  beginning.

The emphasis here seems to be on what you produce, cause or make.  As such, I would interpret it similarly to Jesus' statement in Matthew 7:18,20:

  A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good
  fruit...Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

The point of both passages does not seem to be saying that any who are "born of God" will never sin, but that the product of their lives will be to "produce fruit in keeping with repentance." (Matthew 3:8)  They may sin, but they are saved by genuine repentance such that their lives are characterized by righteousness and good fruit, not sin.


How old were Joseph & Mary when they marrried? A nun in my Catholic school taught us that Mary was 14 and Joseph was 17 and that this was not atypical for the day. Also that in Joseph's case his Marriage to Mary was his second.

Would there be any ancient text or tradition at all relating to Joseph's first wife (the presumed mother of Jude)?

One common source of knowledge about Joseph and Mary is the Protoevangelium of James. This non canonical gospel was actually composed some time in the 2nd century AD. It is very known in most churches, including oriental churches. Of course, it is of dubious source, but it has been well known and illustrated in whole Christianity.

  And Joseph, throwing away his axe, went out to meet them (= the Mary's parents); and when they had assembled, they went away to the high priest, taking with them their rods. And he, taking the rods of all of them, entered into the temple, and prayed; and having ended his prayer, he took the rods and came out, and gave them to them: but there was no sign in them, and Joseph took his rod last; and, behold, a dove came out of the rod, and flew upon Joseph's head. And the priest said to Joseph, You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the virgin of the Lord. But Joseph refused, saying: I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl. I am afraid lest I become a laughing-stock to the sons of Israel. And the priest said to Joseph: Fear the Lord your God, and remember what the Lord did to Dathan, and Abiram, and Korah; how the earth opened, and they were swallowed up on account of their contradiction. And now fear, O Joseph, lest the same things happen in your house. And Joseph was afraid, and took her into his keeping. And Joseph said to Mary: Behold, I have received you from the temple of the Lord; and now I leave you in my house, and go away to build my buildings, and I shall come to you. The Lord will protect you. Source

I have seen this episode in the decoration of lot of old churches, in Europe. Even if we do not have to trust it as part of the Holy Revelation - it is by no way a canonical scripture - I usually have no difficulty to follow this representation.

Also consider what "old" means. It is a relative concept. Today, we could say that someone is old when he/she reaches its 70th birthday. But in ancient times, health was much weaker, and we usually married as young as possible. At Joseph's era, the life expectancy was around 20–30! So one may see himself as an "old man", even a widower with grown children... and being 35...

This is also the earliest text that explicitly claims that Joseph was a widower, with children, at the time that Mary is entrusted to his care. This feature is mentioned in a known Origen's text, who adduces it to demonstrate that the 'brethren of the Lord' were sons of Joseph by a former wife.


Which pre-Nicene Christians who helped shape the trinity doctrine are now considered heretics? There were several theologians in the early centuries of Christianity whose knowledge of Platonism and other Greek philosophy helped shape what is now known as the trinity doctrine.

For example, Tertullian was the first to use the word "persons" (in Latin) when describing a tri-unity within God. Origen was the first person to use hypostasis (Greek equivalent of "persons") and homoousios when describing his hierarchy within God. Also, Sabellius is reported to have used homoousios to describe his modalism, and the term was  adopted by Athanasius of Alexandria to further develop the trinitarian doctrine.

However, all three of these men are considered heretics because of their misunderstanding of the trinity.

Which other pre-Nicene theologians who helped shape the trinity doctrine are now considered heretics by Nicene trinitarians?
(For example, Justin Martyr may be, but I am not sure).

The definition of "heretical" is not universally agreed upon, even by Catholics and Protestants, particularly when applied to views that preceded the final establishment of "orthodoxy."  So rather than attempt to list of trinitarian "heretics" from the early church, perhaps it would be helpful to identify leading thinkers and their contributions, and how those contributions were received.  I'll note five types of thought and their prominent adherents in the first three centuries of the church:

Early imprecision
Economic trinitarianism
Dynamic monarchianism
Modalistic monarchianism
Origen's platonic trinitarianism

Here I'll mostly rely on the 4th edition of Early Christian Doctrines, by J. N. D. Kelly, a standard text in this field.
Early imprecision
In the first century or so after Christ's death, we see a number of authors describing God, but generally not attempting to do so in a systematic fashion.  With the benefit of hindsight, we can identify a number of deficiencies in their thought compared to orthodox trinitarianism.  For example, Ignatius has been accused of economic trinitarianism (see below), and Kelly calls the theology of Hermas an "amalgam of binitarianism and adoptionism." (94)
Regarding the Apologists (like Justin Martyr and Athenagoras), Kelly reports that they are often criticized for failing to teach the eternal generation of the Son, and by extension failing to protect the Son from being subordinated to the Father.  He attributes this more to their "thought-atmosphere" and their lack of a "technical vocabulary adequate for describing eternal distinctions within the Deity" than to an actual failure to distinguish the persons or protect the Son's equality. (101)
Economic trinitarianism
With Irenaeus, recognized as a saint by Roman Catholicism, we have a more nuanced view of the Godhead, though still lacking in several particulars.  Kelly describes his view:

Its second-century traits stand out clearly, particularly its representation of the Triad by the imagery, not of three coequal persons (this was the analogy to be employed by the post-Nicene fathers), but rather of a single personage, the Father Who is the Godhead Itself, with His mind, or rationality [the Son], and His wisdom [the Spirit]. (107–8)

His view is called "economic" trinitarianism, because it emphasizes the unity of God's essential being, and considers the Son and Spirit to be forms or modes that only through the Father's self-revelation are found to be distinct from the Father.  So while Irenaeus sees an eternal relationship between the Father and Son, he still does not teach eternal generation. (106)
Tertullian and Hippolytus stand in this line of thinking and develop it further through their conflicts with monarchians (see next sections).  They introduce the idea of "Persons" in the Godhead, but continue to see the Three as "expressions or forms," and explicitly describe a single divine substance. (114) Both of these men were schismatics, though apparently Hippolytus was reconciled to the church before his death.
Dynamic monarchianism
Next we turn to those who are more typically regarded as having heretical views of the Godhead.  Dynamic monarchianism, also known as adoptionism, is the idea that Jesus was a mere man who was filled with God's spirit.  The earliest proponent of this seems to be Theodotus of Byzantium in the late 2nd century. (116)  He was excommunicated, but others followed in his wake, notably Paul of Samosata, who was condemned for these teachings in AD 268. (117)
Modalistic monarchianism
Now we come to perhaps the best known of the early trinitarian heresies, modalistic monarchianism, commonly known today as simply modalism.  It was influential during its own time as well, and may have even gained some sympathy from a couple third-century popes.
Kelly suggests that some opponents of Justin Martyr held to this view, but identifies Noetus of Smyrna as its first formal proponent.  Noetus affirmed only one God, the Father, and apparently had no difficulty with patripassianism, the idea that the Father suffered and died on the cross. (121)  Another prominent proponent, Sabellius, refined the doctrine and cast it in language similar to that of economic trinitarianism, but continued to see the Son and Spirit as projections of the Father. (122)
Sabellius's contemporaries Tertullian and Hippolytus aggressively opposed this doctrine, and the dispute was far reaching.  Kelly writes that Popes Zephyrinus and Callistus both "sympathized with the widespread popular reaction against the theories of Hippolytus and Tertullian, which they regarded as leading to ditheism," while Hippolytus "considered Zephyrinus an out-and-out modalist." (123)  Kelly concludes that these popes, though sympathetic to modalism, were struggling to develop a compromise approach that would alleviate the dangers they saw in a concept of multiple "persons." (125)  And ultimately, Callistus excommunicated Sabellius. (121)
Origen's platonic trinitarianism
In the East, another strain of trinitarianism thought developed in the context of Platonism.  Origen saw each member of the Godhead as a "distinct hypostasis" from all eternity, going beyond the "economic" view of Tertullian and accepting the idea of eternal generation.  He is criticized for the "strongly pluralist strain" (131) in his trinitarianism, and some have considered him to be virtually a tritheist.  Subordination of the Son and Spirit is also prevalent in his scheme, and was emphasized by some of his followers (like Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, in his fight against Sabellianism). (133)
In the early conflicts over Origen's trinitarianism, Kelly sees a precursor to the wider West–East conflict over the proper understanding of the Godhead.  Not merely a debate over terminology, he sees it primarily as theological dispute between the West's sympathy toward monarchianism and the East's more pluralistic approach. (136)
Conclusion
In this brief overview of "trinitarian" debates of the first three centuries, we see a variety of non-orthodox views but also a slow process of refinement that would finally culminate in the Arian controversy and the Councils of Nicea.  Given this progression it seems unfair to label all these thinkers as "heretics," even though they differed in various ways from trinitarianism.  Some clearly diverged from the developing orthodoxy, it's true, but the struggle to clearly communicate the ideas of God's threeness and oneness burdened the church's greatest thinkers of those years, and they didn't get the opportunity to reevaluate their views in light of Nicea.


Research project: am I missing any verses where Jesus addresses wealth and greed? This is what I have so far; have I missed anything important?

Luke 06:24-25 (woe to rich & fed)
Luke 12:15-21 (rich fool parable)
Luke 16:19-31 (rich man & lazarus)
Mark 10:23-24 / Luke 18:24-25 (camel & needle)
Matt 06:19-21 (treasures in heaven)
Matt 06:24 / Luke 16:13 (god & money)

Thanks for any input.

These all touch on the topic of greed, because they put money in their place.  The ones marked with a = I consider to be more so.

= Matthew 13:22..  the seed among thorny soil was choked by the deceitful ness of wealth.

Luke 16:1-12, Jesus refers to "unrighteous mammon".

= Luke 16:14 also points out sneering Pharisees who loved money.

Luke 21; Mark 10, the widow giving more than any others.  Many regard this as Jesus' last public teaching before the crucifixion, and it was on money.

The parable in Matthew 20 seems to be about generosity, but is also about the envy of gain.  Those given the same wages though they should receive more, but the focus was on the generosity of the master compared with the attitude and expectation of the workers.

That's it at a glance.  Some of them may not be exactly what you're looking for, but hopefully provide some useful ideas.

Additionally, it should probably be said that God no where says wealth is evil, merely coveteousness.  Merely reflecting on the Old Testament and the passages in the Gospels, God was upset when men valued wealth more than their brother. Things over people.  The material is not focus, the heart always is.  If the man in Mark 10 had seen the true worth of what Jesus was offering,  we might have read about an impromptu estate sale...  Perhaps this goes beyond simply answering the question, but it does seem to be "the whole truth".  It seems to round out the answer, keeping it in focus.


What does Revelation 21:5 mean by "everything"? Revelation 21:5 (NIV)::

  He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making everything new!” Then he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.”

My pastor included this verse in his sermon today, and after reading it, he added his own emphasis, "And this means ev-ery-thing!"

But does it really?

What "everything" is being made new?  My car won't be new again, will it?

What is this verse really saying?

According to the book of Genesis God created the heavens and the earth. God gave form to the universe. God filled the earth with living beings. God created light. God created us.

Scripture doesn't state that He will duplicate his children's toys.

That which God has created, He will create anew (including us).

In Revelation 21 it continues with a thorough description of the new Jerusalem. In verses 22-23 it describes;
22)No temple could be seen in the city, for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. 23)And the city has no need of sun or moon, for the glory of God illuminates the city, and the Lamb is its light.

(Doesn't sound like headlights will be necessary.)


Do Baptists believe someone with multiple personalities has multiple souls? Do Baptists believe someone with multiple personalities has multiple souls?  What if someone has two personalities, like the dissociative identity disorder and one has accepted Jesus as their Savior, and the other has not?  Would these be two souls judged independently, one going to Heaven, and the other to Hell?  The movie “Jonathan” though it is fiction, really got me thinking about this.

Note: I edited the question to make it clear I am asking about the real disorder vs. the movie.

The first thing that has to be said is that the movie 'Jonathan' is fiction. There is no indication that the story is intended to be based on anything resembling real life. Christian theology does not deal with fictional situations, and so it is not really useful to ask what the Christian theological approach to an unreal situation is.

Multiple Personality Disorder does exist in real life, but looks very little like the movie. Where it occurs it is not seen as 'multiple people inhabiting a single body' by anyone, either medical professionals or Christian theologians. Instead it is seen as a single person exhibiting differing personality traits, and it is a disorder of the (one) mind that inhabits a body, and can be treated. There is no question of them having 'two souls'.

What is possible in Christian theology is that of a second spirit entering and sometimes taking over the body of a person - called 'possession'. Note that I carefully say 'possible' because most Christians would consider it a largely theoretical possibility, occurring only extremely rarely if at all, and that ancient (or modern) descriptions of possession were almost invariably instances of multiple personality disorder.

If we accept possession we must note that again there is no question of multiple souls for a single person. The possessing spirit is a separate entity from the person whose body it is, and can be cast out. The person has a single soul


How do we know that Jesus was crucified at 9:00 a.m.? I have heard many times that Jesus was crucified at 9:00 a.m. and remained on the cross till 3 p.m.. How do we know that? The Scriptures say something like the third hour:

  Matthew 15:25: And it was the third hour, and they
  crucified him.

But how do we know that the third hour was exactly 9:00 a.m.?

Do we draw information on that point exclusively from Scriptures?

Is it something like a known fact from Hebrew tradition?

Or, perhaps, something else ?

We do not know that the third hour was exactly 9:00 AM - that is an estimation for the purpose of providing an understandable translation.

The Jewish day started at dawn and ended at dusk.  There were 12 hours, which were each 1/12th of the stretch between dawn and dusk. (More info.)

For simplicity, if we consider dawn to be roughly 6:00 AM, that would make the 3rd hour about 9:00 AM.


How do Lutherans who accept apostolic succession trace theirs? It appears some Lutherans claim apostolic succession.
How do they trace their apostolic succession?

At the time of the reformation, many of the bishops of the Church of England, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cramner, were already recognized as consecrated bishops by the Roman church since they had been consecrated prior to the reformation. Apostolic succession in the Anglican communion is traced through these bishops.

The the Churches of Sweden and Finland probably do not claim an unbroken line of laying on of hands, as Gustav I Vasa who converted to Lutheranism, requested the replacement of the Archbishop of Sweden by the Pope, in accordance with the wishes of the Riksdag, which had deposed Gustav Trolle in favor of Johannes Magnus. When the Pope refused, Laurentius Petri was consecrated archbishop of Sweden by the bishop of Vasteras, Petri Magnus. Petri Magnus is said to have been consecrated by the Pope in Rome, which would make for unbroken apostolic succession, however, this is a matter of some dispute.


What are the differences between the translation ideologies of the NASB and ESV? I've read both the New American Standard Bible and the English Standard Version for some time now. I frankly can't tell which one I'm reading; they're that close. Many passages are translated with the exact same wording.

What are the differences between the translation ideologies of the two?

From the ESV Wikipedia link (emphasis added):

  The result is a translation that is more literal than the popular New International Version, but more idiomatic than the New American Standard Bible.

That's probably the main difference. So ESV is going to be more literal, less figurative and free from exaggeration/embellishment in it's translations and is going to "use, contain or denote expressions that are natural to the native speaker" (idiomatic as defined by dictionary.com).

(My opinion) From what I've read from each of them, the NASB seems to be smoother and more easily understood in modern English. However, with the ESV, it's nice sometimes to get a more clear look at the original meanings/translation.

The most updated version of the NASB was 1995* and the most recent version of ESV is a 2011 edition*.

  "[...] on occasion the ESV translates 'person' or 'one' where previous translations used 'man' [however] it keeps gender specific language [as-is] in the original [text]."*

*from Wikipedia links provided.

Good question, I learned a bit through this short bit of research :)


According to Catholicism, what is an imprimatur? What is the scope of an imprimatur? What does a work having an imprimatur mean for that work? What does it mean for the body of doctrine itself?

Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat

"Imprimatur" is Latin for "let it be printed."  An imprimatur is a bishop's permission to print a religious book.  The bishop is always the local ordinary of the author who wrote the book.  The Catholic Code of Canon Law, canons 822-4, requires pastors to help guide the faithful in their use of social communication and particularly books.  The imprimatur is one way that charge is carried out.

An imprimatur is always preceded by a "nihil obstat," which is Latin for "nothing stands in the way."  This is the judgment that the religious book contains no significant doctrinal errors.  Both the imprimatur and the nihil obstat are negative judgments insofar as they are not meant to positively approve the contents of the book, but are merely meant to say that it is not disapproved.  It sometimes happens that imprimaturs or nihil obstats are revoked after a period of time due to a discovery of doctrinal errors in the work.

Answering Specific Questions

"What is the scope of an imprimatur?

The scope covers the entire book as published, but not new versions of the same book.  It is a practice which is only carried out for religious texts because it is a judgment about how the book comports with the doctrines of the Catholic Church, doctrines which involve faith and morals.  It is a negative assessment insofar as it is not meant to approve the book or any proposition in the book.  It is not an endorsement (see above).

"What does a work having an imprimatur mean for that work?"

It means that the local bishop believes the work is fit to print.  See above for more detail.

"What does it mean for the body of doctrine itself?"

As far as the deposit of faith of the Church is concerned, it means very little.  Per canons 822-3, it is a service to the faithful, not a means of developing or promulgating doctrine.  Although it is a judgment about the presence of errors in a work, imprimaturs and nihil obstats can be revoked, as noted above.  It is also a diocesan-based initiative in the sense that each diocese has a bishop and at least one censor (a theologian approved to render a nihil obstat), so the opinion represents the decision of a single diocese rather than the whole Church.

Newman on St. Alphonsus Liguori

St. John Henry Newman writes about the beatification process of St. Alphonsus Liguori, part of which was an examination of Liguori's writings in a way that would be very similar to the examination carried out by those authorized to give the imprimatur or nihil obstat.  Although this process is more precise, thorough, and authoritative than an imprimatur or nihil obstat, I believe it may help shed some light on your question at a deeper level.  Please forgive the length:

  It is supposed by Protestants that, because St. Alfonso's writings have had such high commendation bestowed upon them by authority, therefore they have been invested with a quasi-infallibility. This has arisen in good measure from Protestants not knowing the force of theological terms. The words to which they refer are the authoritative decision that "nothing in his works has been found worthy of censure," "censurâ dignum;" but this does not lead to the conclusions which have been drawn from it. Those words occur in a legal document, and cannot be interpreted except in a legal sense. In the first place, the sentence is negative; nothing in St. Alfonso's writings is positively approved; and secondly it is not said that there are no faults in what he has written, but nothing which comes under the ecclesiastical censura, which is something very definite. To take and interpret them, in the way commonly adopted in England, is the same mistake, as if one were to take the word "apologia" in the English sense of apology, or "infant" in law to mean a little child.

  Now first as to the meaning of the form of words viewed as a proposition. When they were brought before the fitting authorities at
  Rome by the Archbishop of Besançon, the answer returned to him
  contained the condition that those words were to be interpreted, "with
  due regard to the mind of the Holy See concerning the approbation of
  writings of the servants of God, ad effectum Canonisationis." This is
  intended to prevent any Catholic taking the words about St. Alfonso's
  works in too large a sense. Before a saint is canonised, his works are
  examined and a judgment pronounced upon them. Pope Benedict XIV. says,
  "The end or scope of this judgment is, that it may appear, whether the
  doctrine of the servant of God, which he has brought out in his
  writings, is free from any soever theological censure." And he remarks
  in addition, "It never can be said that the doctrine of a servant of
  God is approved by the Holy See, but at most it can [only] be said
  that it is not disapproved (non reprobatam) in case that the revisers
  had reported that there is nothing found by them in his works, which
  is adverse to the decrees of Urban VIII., and that the judgment of the
  Revisers has been approved by the sacred Congregation, and confirmed
  by the Supreme Pontiff." The Decree of Urban VIII. here referred to
  is, "Let works be examined, whether they contain errors against faith
  or good morals (bonos mores), or any new doctrine, or a doctrine
  foreign and alien to the common sense and custom of the Church." The
  author from whom I quote this (M. Vandenbroeck, of the diocese of
  Malines) observes, "It is therefore clear, that the approbation of the
  works of the Holy Bishop touches not the truth of every proposition,
  adds nothing to them, nor even gives them by consequence a degree of
  intrinsic probability." He adds that it gives St. Alfonso's theology
  an extrinsic probability, from the fact that, in the judgment of the
  Holy See, no proposition deserves to receive a censure; but that "that
  probability will cease nevertheless in a particular case, for any one
  who should be convinced, whether by evident arguments, or by a decree
  of the Holy See, or otherwise, that the doctrine of the Saint deviates
  from the truth." He adds, "From the fact that the approbation of the
  works of St. Alfonso does not decide the truth of each proposition, it
  follows, as Benedict XIV. has remarked, that we may combat the
  doctrine which they contain; only, since a canonised saint is in
  question, who is honoured by a solemn culte in the Church, we ought
  not to speak except with respect, nor to attack his opinions except
  with temper and modesty."
  Then, as to the meaning of the word censura: Benedict XIV. enumerates a number of "Notes" which come under that name; he says,
  "Out of propositions which are to be noted with theological censure,
  some are heretical, some erroneous, some close upon error, some
  savouring of heresy," and so on; and each of these terms has its own
  definite meaning. Thus by "erroneous" is meant, according to Viva, a
  proposition which is not immediately opposed to a revealed
  proposition, but only to a theological conclusion drawn from premisses
  which are de fide; "savouring of heresy," when a proposition is
  opposed to a theological conclusion not evidently drawn from premisses
  which are de fide, but most probably and according to the common mode
  of theologising, and so with the rest. Therefore when it was said by
  the revisers of St. Alfonso's works that they were not "worthy of
  censure," it was only meant that they did not fall under these
  particular Notes.

  But the answer from Rome to the Archbishop of Besançon went further
  than this; it actually took pains to declare that any one who pleased
  might follow other theologians instead of St. Alfonso. After saying
  that no priest was to be interfered with who followed St. Alfonso in
  the Confessional, it added, "This is said, however, without on that
  account judging that they are reprehended who follow opinions handed
  down by other approved authors."

  And this too, I will observe, that St. Alfonso made many changes of
  opinion himself in the course of his writings; and it could not for an
  instant be supposed that we were bound to every one of his opinions,
  when he did not feel himself bound to them in his own person. And,
  what is more to the purpose still, there are opinions, or some
  opinion, of his which actually has been proscribed by the Church
  since, and cannot now be put forward or used. I do not pretend to be a
  well-read theologian myself, but I say this on the authority of a
  theological professor of Breda, quoted in the Mélanges Théol. for
  1850-1. He says: "It may happen, that, in the course of time, errors
  may be found in the works of St. Alfonso and be proscribed by the
  Church, a thing which in fact has already occurred."

Sources

Wikipedia - Imprimatur
Wikipedia - Nihil Obstat
"What are Imprimi Potest, Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat?" by Fr. Bartunek
Apologia pro Vita Sua, by John Henry Newman (Section 8 of the appendix)
Code of Canon Law, Canons 822-4


Does everything happen for a reason, and what is the biblical support for the different views? Sometimes, people say that everything happens for a reason (as in "God has a purpose with everything that happens, good or bad"). It seems to me that the Bible is not clear on the subject. On one hand, it seems to contradict, for example, our free will, and on the other hand, there are passages, such as the following verses:

  Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were
  written in your book before one of them came to be. (Ps 136:16)

I'm not looking for the "right" Christian view on this, because I know people come to different conclusions. But I would like an answer that provides important biblical passages to support or fail to support the two views and a commentary for each.

Related: All my days are ordained before I was born?

@Martin.kv Good answer! I would only add Romans 8:28

  And we know that all things work together for good to them that love
  God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

All things, whether good or bad, work together for good to those who love God and follow His plan for them.

Like Joseph said in Genesis 50:20 to his brothers

  But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good,
  in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people
  alive.

It wasn't God's plan for his brothers to work evil against him and sell him as a slave, that was the enemy's doing. But God USED this opportunity for good, and in the process, perfected Joseph's character so that he would be ready to do what God had planned for him to do.

In the same way, God has plans for us. Even if sometimes things happen that we do not understand, God plans to use these to prepare us to carry out the plans He has for us. Nevertheless He does not violate our free will, so this only happens if we so choose to submit our will to His.


If Jesus is not God according to Jehovah’s Witnesses, why was He accused of blasphemy? Denying the deity of Jesus Christ is one of the core beliefs of the Jehovah Witnesses: Jehovah’s Witnesses View of Christ.
John 5:18 states,

For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill
Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was
calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.

John 8:59,

Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid
Himself, and went out of the temple.

John 10:31,

The Jews took up stones AGAIN to stone Him.

John 10:33,

The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for BLASPHEMY; and because You, being a man make Yourself out God.

Also, according to the trial record at Matthew 26:57-66, and specifically at vs65 the high priest Caiaphas makes a strong accusation:

The high priest tore his robes, saying, "He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, have you not heard the blasphemy;"

What was the blasphemy, according to the Jews, that Jesus committed that resulted in His crucifixion and eventual death?
Related question asked here

The Jehovah's Witnesses have published in their literature their explanation - that the religious leaders who accused him of trying to make himself God misunderstood. In their New World Translation of John 10:33, they have those leaders saying, “because you, although being a man, make yourself a god.” This is also in their 2006 book, The Greatest Man Who Ever Lived, section 81, giving the JW explanation as to why there were further attempts to kill Jesus. After quoting that verse, the book asks,

“Since Jesus never claimed to be a god, why do the Jews say this?”

JWs say that Jesus was not God, but “a god”, and have rendered John 1:1 that way too. However, your question is not about that, but as to why JWs say religious leaders back in the day misunderstood Jesus as claiming to be God.  Even if that is taken to include the idea that Jesus was “a god”, which would also warrant stoning to death in the view of those religious leaders, why do the JWs claim that they had misunderstood Jesus? That book states:

“The Jews, however, overlook the fact that Jesus acknowledges
receiving authority from his Father. That Jesus claims to be less than
God, he next shows by asking, ‘Is it not written in your Law [at Psalm
82:6], ‘I said: “you are gods”? If he called ‘gods’ those against whom
the word of God came,… do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and
dispatched into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, I am God’s
Son?”

Without going into any argument as to why Jesus’ quoting of that Psalm need not mean what the JWs think it means, the outstanding question is, why did his explanation not pacify the Jews so that they realised Jesus was not claiming to be God? According to the NWT rendition of Jesus’ next comment, those who ‘misunderstood’ him would have had it completely cleared up when he added, according to their NWT,

“…believe the works, in order that you may come to know and may
continue knowing that the Father is in [union with] me and I am in
[union with] the Father” (John 10:38).

That could not be clearer, could it? Jesus was apparently denying being God but only claiming to be in union with God the Father. Why, those religious leaders would likely make the same claim of themselves! They were appointed god-like status as representing God on earth, entitling them to respect (not stoning to death), and they were zealously seeking to act in union with God.
This shows that the NWT has Jesus effectively denying being God. The NWT does not give reasons for that slant, but masses of JW literature reiterates their belief that Jesus had a starting point in time, being the first and only direct creation of Jehovah as the Word. This is the basis for their renditions of John 1:1 and 10:33, 38, and why they won’t have Jesus taking the Divine Name, the I Am, to himself.
The problem of how those religious leaders could have possibly continued to ‘misunderstand’ Jesus’ claims here simply increases with the NWT rendition of events. According to the NWT, Jesus is really denying being God. He is making clear that he is merely ‘a god’ and only ‘in union with’ God – not “in God” as all other translations of the Bible state. By changing “God” to “a god”, and “in him” to “in union with him”, that is the same as Jesus saying, “I’m not God! Why are you trying to kill me? I’m not God!”
Of course, we all know that the Bible nowhere has Jesus saying, “I am not God,” but the NWT in those verses comes as close as it can to that. Not because the JWs have misunderstood the words of Jesus, any more than those religious leaders back then did, but because they cannot have their rendition of the Bible saying in any sense that Jesus is God, and that he is in the Father, as the Father is in him. Thus, the NWT tries to have Jesus portrayed as “a god” and saying he is merely “in union with the Father.”
If that is correct, then in the NWT Jesus disabused those religious leaders of a false notion, that he was claiming to be God. He would have taken all the wind out of their sails, and none of them would have picked up a stone to kill him. It is only according to other translations that we see they did not misunderstand Jesus. They knew full well that Jesus was claiming to be God.


Why did Jesus not want to be known as the Messiah? Jesus, when talking to his disciples in Matthew 16 specifically instructed them not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.

Matthew 16:20 (NIV)

  Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.

Why did he do this?  Do we know his purpose in hiding this fact from everyone?  Is there any doctrinal relevancy or importance to this request of Jesus?

Additional passages similar to this include Mark 1:43-44, Mark 7:36, and Matthew 9:30.

In the next verse Jesus tells of how he will have to suffer, die, and rise again.

  Matthew 16:21 NIV
  21 From that time on Jesus began to
  explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many
  things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers
  of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised
  to life.

Perhaps he did not want the people to know he was the messiah until after these things had happened.

He may also have known that he would not have much time left after people started calling him the messiah publicly.  He still had a lot of teaching left to do.

He may also wanted the people to come to the realization that he is the messiah on their own.  As it seems they did, even though he still does not state this directly at his trial.

  Matthew 26:63-64
  NIV
  63 But Jesus remained silent.

  The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living
  God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.”

  64 “You have said so,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you:
  From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of
  the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”


Do Protestant catechisms teach that man is created by and for God, and God always draws man to himself? I'm looking for a comparable Protestant teaching, and hopefully the scriptural reference it's based on, for this point within the Catholic catechism.

  The desire for God is written in the human heart, because man is created by God and for God; and God never ceases to draw man to himself.
  CCC, n. 1

From a Lutheran perspective, we believe that people will have a "god," because we are naturally driven to look for something/someone for all good things (this is essentially Luther's definition of what a god is).  So, we would agree with the statement in the Catholic Catechism that "man is a religious being."  We also would cite St. Paul in Romans 1:19-20, Acts 14:15-17, Acts 17:22ff.

However, to know the true God, we need His revelation to us which comes through the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as well as through the Sacraments (Baptism and the Lord's Supper).  It is through these means of grace that God calls us to Himself and justifies us sinners before Him on account of Christ.  We are naturally turned away from the true God and need Him to bring us to Himself through these means.

The Small and Large Catechisms of the Lutheran Church talk about these in more detail, particularly in the Large Catechism's exposition on the First Commandment and in the exposition on the Third Article of the Apostles' Creed.

I'll quote from the statement about the Third Article, because the catechism makes the point that it is the Holy Spirit who brings us to faith in Christ for our salvation:

  Just as the Son obtains dominion, whereby He wins us, through His
  birth, death, resurrection, etc., so also the Holy Ghost effects our
  sanctification by the following parts, namely, by the communion of
  saints or the Christian Church, the forgiveness of sins, the
  resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting; that is, He first
  leads us into His holy congregation, and places us in the bosom of the
  Church, whereby He preaches to us and brings us to Christ.

  For neither you nor I could ever know anything of Christ, or believe
  on Him, and obtain Him for our Lord, unless it were offered to us and
  granted to our hearts by the Holy Ghost through the preaching of the
  Gospel. The work is done and accomplished; for Christ has acquired and
  gained the treasure for us by His suffering, death, resurrection, etc.
  But if the work remained concealed so that no one knew of it, then it
  would be in vain and lost. That this treasure, therefore, might not
  lie buried, but be appropriated and enjoyed, God has caused the Word
  to go forth and be proclaimed, in which He gives the Holy Ghost to
  bring this treasure home and appropriate it to us.


Does The Revelation chapter 20 tell us that the Rapture will take place after the millennial reign of Christ? 1st Thessalonians 4:16  says that those Christians who have already died when Christ returns, will rise first

  For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

In the Revelation 20:4 and 5 it tells us that that will not take place until after the thousand year reign, if I understand it correctly;

Verse 4 as I read it says that those who were martyred for Christ will resurrect and reign with him, but the rest of us will not resurrect until after the thousand years.

Or am I misreading 1st Thessalonians, and it is referring to only the martyrs?

Revelation KJV

  20:4  And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

  20:5  But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

  20:6  Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

A premillenialist would say, "No."

Tim LaHaye, co-author of the best-selling Left Behind series of novels, wrote a book called Revelation Unveiled, a commentary on the book of Revelation from a premillenial, pre-tribulation viewpoint.  The book essentially provides a scriptural basis for the Left Behind series.

There are several chapters in the book devoted to the first few verses in Revelation 20, discussing different viewpoints and defending the premillennial view.  In a chapter titled "The First Resurrection," he talks about this "believer's resurrection" occurring in three phases.

Phase 1 is the resurrection of the church age saints.  These are Christians who have died from the time of Jesus through the time of the Rapture (which he places before the tribulation).  This is the resurrection described in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, with the Rapture happening immediately after.

Phase 2 is the resurrection of the Old Testament saints: those who were servants of God before the time of Jesus.  Based on Daniel 12:1-2, he places this resurrection at the end of the tribulation (still before the millennium).

Phase 3 is the resurrection of the tribulation saints.  These are the people described in Revelation 20:4: those that had lived during the tribulation, but were martyred and did not worship the beast.  This occurs shortly after Phase 2.

These three groups, which together make up all believers of all time, are all considered part of the "first resurrection" described in Revelation 20:6.  Mr. LaHaye places the timing of all of these within a 7 year period.

The "rest of the dead" mentioned in Revelation 20:5 are the unbelievers of all ages.  They are not resurrected until after the millennium, when they are judged (Revelation 20:11-15).


Where did the dates at the bottom of the pages in the Book of Mormon come from? From these images of an original copy of the Book of Mormon, it appears that the dates and chapter summaries that appear in modern printings do not appear in the original.

When exactly did these summaries and dates become associated with each chapter and book in the printings?  What authority is behind the dates?  Do these originate with Joseph Smith, or were they included at a later time?

According to the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, chapter summaries first appeared in an edition published in 1920, under the editorship of James E. Talmage, of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, but the chapter summaries in modern printings of the Book of Mormon, as well as the footnotes and cross-references, date to the 1981 printing, which was "edited by a committee headed by members of the Quorum of the Twelve."

These chapter summaries were not part of the original text, and are intended simply as summaries, much like those that can be found in many editions of the Bible, giving an overview of the material to be discussed.

As for the dates, they simply count years in the narrative from fixed reference points in time, under the assumption that the birth of Jesus happened in the year 1 AD.  (This date is used for convenience, and is not an actual point of doctrine, so far as I know.)  The beginning of the book is set at 600 BC, because of a revelation that the Savior would be born six hundred years after their departure from Jerusalem.  The author(s) of the dates clearly did not want to embellish in any way; in spans where the text does not count years, the date on that page simply says "between X and Y," giving the two known years from the chronology that the current events of the narrative are taking place somewhere between.


What happened to the Book of the Law in the time of Josiah? 2 Kings 22 (NIV)

  8 Hilkiah the high priest said to Shaphan the secretary, “I have found
  the Book of the Law in the temple of the Lord.” He gave it to Shaphan,
  who read it.

  11 When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law, he tore his
  robes.

From the reaction of King Josiah, it looked like he had never read the Book of the Law. Verse 8 also sounds like the book was lost for a long time.

Was the Book of the Law lost for a long time that King Josiah never saw it before?
Does this discovery of the Book of the Law mean that the location of the book was not known before?
Which copy of the Book of the Law was it? Was it the copy for the King or from the  Levitical priests? (Deuteronomy 17:18)
Did their ignorance of the presence of Book of the Law mean that nobody at that time cared to go inside the Temple to read from the Book of the Law?
How may we refute people who say that someone forged the book and put it there?

tl;dr> This clip from the end Raiders of the Lost Ark probably captures the essence of what happened rather well - it's not that it was "lost" so much as ignored and forgotten.

King Josiah ruled Judah over a period in which the re-discovery of YHWH overall was in vogue.  For the past 57 years, two very wicked kings had ruled - Manesseh and his son Amon.
Of Mannesseh, it is said:

and he did what was evil in the sight of the Lord, yaccording to the despicable practices of the nations whom the Lord drove out before the people of Israel. For he rebuilt the high places zthat Hezekiah his father had destroyed, and he erected altars for Baal and made aan Asherah, bas Ahab king of Israel had done, cand worshiped all the host of heaven and served them. And he built altars in the house of the Lord,  ... And he burned his son as an offering* and used fortune-telling and omens and dealt with mediums and with necromancers. He did much evil in the sight of the Lord, provoking him to anger.

The wickedest king of Israel presided over a huge decline in the worship of God.  In such a regime, especially if new altars were being built in the Temple, it would not at all be surprising if the Book of the Law was "filed away" and forgotten.
And, unlike today, when book ownership is prevelant, mis-filing one copy really could prevent anyone from knowing about it.  Books and Scrolls were, in antiquity, extremely expensive things.  Even for an epistle as short as Romans, Raymond Brown has estimate that the parchment and ink alone would have cost $3000 - a fortune in those times.
Even today, "discoveries" are being made, not out in the field, but in museum vaults! Mere possession of an object, and knowledge that one has it, are two completely different things.  Just look inside the drawers of your bathroom sink (if you live in the West) if you don't believe me.

So, to answer your questions directly:

Was the Book of the Law lost for a long time that King Josiah never saw it before?
It had been ignored for up to 57 years - after the days of Hezekiah, but during the 55 year reign of Manessah, 2 years of Amon's reign and 18 years of Josiah's reign up to this point.

Does this discovery of the Book of the Law mean that the location of the book was not known before?
Whether or not it was "known" is debatable.  It was in the Temple and always had been.  But imagine trying to find a single artifact in a large building that served as a storehouse.  (Remember, people didn't enter the Temple on a regular basis - only the priests did.  It wasn't a church!)

Which copy of the Book of the Law was it? Was it the copy for the King or from the Levitical priests? (Deuteronomy 17:18)
There is nothing to suggest that it was anything other than the copy in the Temple.  The copy for the King would definitely not have been kept, as Josiah's two predecessors did not belong to the cult of YHWH.

Did their ignorance of the presence of Book of the Law mean that nobody at that time cared to go inside the Temple to read from the Book of the Law?
Yup.  (At least from the priest's point of view.) Remember, ordinary people were not allowed inside the Temple. Indeed, women weren't even allowed in the inner courts. Only the Priests had access to the interior storehouses, and only the Chief Preist had access to the Holy of Holies.

How may we refute people who say that someone forged the book and put it there?
Scholars can't and don't even try. Indeed, the "JEDP" hypothesis suggests that while the text itself formed orally over a period of 400 years (from roughly 1000 BC until 600BC), claims such as "Josiah being the greatest king that ever ruled Israel" suggest that the form we have today was last edited during his reign.  That said, ultimately, even a biblical perfectionist such as myself understands that the Bible we have today is the one that God intended for us to have. This is the doctrine known as 'preservation.' Whether or not it has been edited is of little consequence - the church has done quite well with the Bible it has.


God's emotions in contrast to his transcendence? (Catholic position) We read about God's emotions, e.g., anger in Exodus  4:14 or in Exodus  22:23. Does it mean that God's behavior is influenced by those emotions? How is it compatible with his transcendence, i.e., is he independent of the material universe at this point if people can irritate him?

Biblical argumentation expected; Catholic position welcome.

The O.P. asks about the Catholic position regarding the “emotions” of God, especially as found in the Old Testament.

Based both on Scripture and sound philosophical principles, the Church holds that strictly speaking God (in His Divine Nature) does not have emotions in the same sense that human beings do, for the simple reason that He is not a human being. Indeed, He is not (evidently) a creature, and so He does not undergo any kind of change whatsoever, much less the kind of change—such as emotions—that require having a body.

The Old-Testament depiction of God’s emotions, therefore, is to be regarded as metaphorical: as expressing in human language a truth about God that cannot be adequately formulated in human words.

Scriptural references to God’s unchangeability

The Scriptures affirm that God is unchanging, even in the Old Testament. For example, there is a frequent image of God as the unchanging rock or shield:

  The LORD is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer, my God, my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold (Ps. 18: 2).

  My God, my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold and my refuge, my savior; you save me from violence (2 Sam. 22:3).

In these passages (only two selected from numerous such passages), the unchangeability of God is seen as an advantage, because that we He can defend His people from their enemies. There are also explicit references to God’s unchangeable character:

  For I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed (Malachi 3:16).

  God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it? (Num. 23:19).

  Of old you [the LORD] laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you will remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will change them like a robe, and they will pass away, but you are the same, and your years have no end (Ps. 102:25-27).

Moreover, His decrees are unchanging; He does not “change His mind”:

  And also the Glory of Israel [i.e., God] will not lie or have regret, for he is not a man, that he should have regret (1 Sam. 15:29).

  The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever (Is. 40:8).

  The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind, “You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek” (Ps. 110:4).

The New Testament, which has the advantage of the definitive Revelation by Jesus Christ, is even more clear on this matter:

  Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change (James 1:17).

Even the Incarnation does not change God in His Divine Nature. Consider the following passage from the letter of St. Paul to the Philippians:

  Though he was in the form of God, [Jesus] did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men (Phil. 2:6-7).

It is impossible that St. Paul, a Greek-speaking Jew from Tarsus in Cilicia (Asia Minor), should not have understood the affinity of such terms as form (morphé) and likeness (homoíoma) to the philosophies of Aristotle and Plato. By becoming man (“taking the form of a servant” and “being born in the likeness of men”), Jesus did not shed his Divine Nature (the “form” of God) or diminish it in any way. Rather, he humbled or emptied himself by assuming a human nature, thereby veiling his Divinity and making it less manifest than it could have been. It is precisely by assuming a human nature that Jesus was able to suffer and die for us on the Cross, whereas before, it was impossible:

  And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross (Phil 2:8).

It is in the light of Jesus’ Divine Nature that we can interpret the following passage from the Letter to the Hebrews:

  Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever (Heb. 13:8).

Or the following from Revelation:

  I [Jesus] am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end (Rev. 22:13).

All of these passage (of which this is only a sample) are, of course, in tension with numerous passages that speak of God as if He possessed human emotions: anger, grief, compassion, joy, or passages in which He seems to change His mind. (I took these passages from http://www.gotquestions.org/does-God-have-emotions.html.)

Arguments based on sound philosophy

Note that although the Church does not take “sides” in strictly philosophical debates, the arguments dealt with here have effectively become part of the Church’s patrimony, and are implicit in the Church’s dogmas regarding the nature of God.

Some anthropological background

Human emotions, of course, entail an interior change of state or mood that a person has no control over, and so if God is truly unchanging, then He could not, properly speaking, experience them in His Divine Nature.

We are not speaking here of Jesus Christ in his human nature. Naturally, Jesus does, and did, experience human emotions in his human nature: that is part and parcel of being fully human. Because the Person of Jesus is the very Divine Son, we can correctly say that God experiences human emotion in Jesus’ human nature. (See Catechism of the Catholic Church 467-469.) The question, however, is whether God can experience emotions in His Divine Nature, and the answer must be “no,” because we can demonstrate that the Divine Nature is unchanging.

Argument that God is unchanging

If the reader would like a fuller treatment of this topic, he should read the Summa theolgiae, I, qq. 2, 3, and 9, which is where these arguments are drawn from. St. Thomas Aquinas’ treatise is not, of course, a document of the Magisterium, but it does represent sound philosophical speculation intended to be fully in line with what the Church teaches about God.

God is the Creator of all things, and He Himself, of course, is not created. In order for something to be able to change from one state to another, it must be brought into its new state by something distinct from itself. One cannot heat a tea kettle without a stove, nor boil an egg without hot water, nor shoot an arrow without a bow (not to mention an archer). (Although it is true that living things, in a way, move themselves, it is always a part of that living thing that moves a different part. For example, my leg moves because my muscles contract, and I stand up because my legs lift my torso, head, and so on.) (See the first paragraph of the responsum to I, q. 2, a. 3.)

There is nothing, however, that can bring God into being, because He exists before all things: not only “in time” (actually, God is completely outside of time), but in the sense that He must maintain all of His creatures in existence, lest they cease to exist entirely. (See I, q. 104, a. 1.)

For this reason, God must be unique (for there would have to be something outside of God that could produce another “god”), perfectly simple (without the slightest composition), and unchanging.

We are not to construe this to mean that God is “passive” or “uncaring,” because in fact God is exactly the opposite: He is so active and powerful that He does not need to change His state in order to care for or be concerned about His creation. To use an image, God is not unchanging in the way a stone is unchanging (cold and passive), but the way a fire is unchanging (always giving out intense heat). He is unchanging by excess of power, not by defect.

Possessing human emotions would entail a change in God

If God in His Divine Nature were to experience human emotions, in the same way that man experiences them, He would suffer a change.

In man, an emotion is a type of “passion.” What that means is that some type of external stimulus or situation produces those emotions in us, and we do not full have control over them. We are “passive” with respect to our emotions; more often than not, they “happen” to us, whether we like it or not. (See Ia-IIae, q. 22, a. 1.)

Hence, that external agent (whatever it is: another person, a situation, even the weather) is acting upon the person who experiences it, effectively changing his emotional state.

It is possible for us to change our emotional state to some degree, but even that entails a change from one state to another.

God, however, Who is the Creator of all things (even of our emotions) cannot possibly be “influenced” by an external agent like that. Whatever is external to Him has been created by Him. Moreover, since God is fully “active” (as we saw above), He cannot even change His own internal state. God does not, in any way, have “parts,” which would be necessary for God to cause a change in Himself.

(Again, this is not a weakness on God’s part: rather, He is so powerful that He does not need to change His interior state, as we would.)

It follows that God does not experiences emotions, at least not in the same sense that human beings do. However, we can say that His Essence contains, in a pre-eminent way, and in a single act, all of the richness that is contained in our emotions.

How to square the unchangeability of God with His apparent emotions in the Bible

There remains the question of how to square God’s simplicity and immutability with the apparent emotions that He displays in the Bible, especially (but not exclusively) in the Old Testament.

In essence, these are to be taken metaphorically. (This answer is suggested, regarding a slightly different problem, in the answer to objection 3 of I, q. 9, a. 1.) When the Bible makes an metaphorical affirmation regarding God, it is revealing an aspect of God’s unfathomable richness that cannot be fully or adequately expressed in human language.

For example, the Bible (even the Old Testament) refers God as our Father. For example, consider Deut. 32:6:

  Do you thus repay the Lord, you foolish and senseless people? Is not he your father, who created you, who made you and established you?

Here, the text is not considering the Trinitarian Fatherhood of God the Father, but the relationship that we have to God. God is clearly not our literal, human father. Nevertheless, what the Bible is trying to show is that God has all the best characteristics of a human father: providence, kindness, steadfast love, and so on.

In a similar way, when the Bible speaks of the “wrath” of God, it is expressing in human language how much our own actions can offend God, and that when we commit such actions, we invariably experience some kind of suffering. It is that consequence of our sinful actions that the Bible interprets as the “wrath” of God: not that He is ever literally angry, but that sometimes He must allows us to experience the consequences of our actions in order to teach us not to disobey Him.

We must also keep in mind that the Old Testament in particular shows only an imperfect understanding of God. It took a long time for the ancient Israelites to develop a truly filial relationship with God; at first their relationship with Him was largely one of fear. (See, for instance, Exodus 20:19, among many examples.)

This type of imperfect understanding is evident in the passage in which God rescues the People of Israel from Egypt. Consider what God is said to have done to the Pharaoh:

  I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and he will pursue them [the Israelites, in the Red Sea], and I will get glory over Pharaoh and all his host, and the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord (Ex. 14:4).

It seems as though God is inducing the Pharaoh to be obstinate, so as make a show of him. In this passage there are two things to be kept in mind: first of all, in ancient language, it was common to attribute to God things that, in fact, were done by man. It was a sort of acknowledgement of His majesty. In reality, the Pharaoh hardened his own heart—the Lord merely permitted him, but did not compel him, to do so—but the language and idiom of the time was such as to attribute the hardening to God. Second, there is a some admixture of human weakness here on the author’s part. It does not occur to the hagiographer that God also cares for the Egyptians, just as much as He cares for the Israelites—something that we know, now that Jesus Christ has revealed it fully to us.

The passages that show the emotions of God, therefore, are to be taken metaphorically. They attempt to express in human language the inexpressible richness of God, and the only way to do that is through metaphor. Moreover, especially in the Old Testament, some of the “cruder” things attributed to God (wrath, vengeance, and so on) must be interpreted in the light of the fact that the Old Testament represents only an incomplete revelation of God, that is completed in Jesus Christ.


What was the early American church like? Which denominations were prevalent among the churches of North America in the late 17th century and 18th century?

During that time, was there significant of cooperation or communication between church groups in America and the rest of the world?

When did the first "American denominations" emerge in earnest?

Denominations prevalent in North America in late 17th and 18th centuries:(In approximate order of arrival or apperance) [Note: there may well have been others; these are the ones that come to mind in an overview.]

Roman Catholics, principally in Canada, the far North of New England, and the colony of Maryland;

Anglicans, both the Puritan subset, in Boston, and more mainline flavors in other Southern colonies (e.g. Virginia);

Baptists (originated in Rhode Island under Roger Williams);

Lutherans, first in New Sweden / Delaware, and Pennsylvania, and to a lesser extent in other places.

Dutch Calvinists, in New Amsterdam (under the Reformed denominations) and Scots Calvinists (who eventually became the Presbyterian denominations)

Quakers, in Pennsylvania

Methodists, in Georgia, and other colonies.

Moravians and Mennonites / Amish came to Pennsylvania and North Carolina during the 18th Century.

The most significant communication and co-operation between Christians in the New World and in the Old would likely have been among the Roman Catholics, and the Anglicans.

The first "American denomination" was the Baptists, and the Congregationalists, who evolved form the Puritan Anglicans in New England.


Were the Jews expecting the Messiah to suffer at all? When Jesus spoke about his future suffering it did not seem to register properly.

For example:

  (Matthew 16:22)
  Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!”

This raises the question: Did the Jews push the suffering of the servant Messiah (Isaiah 53) to the background of their mind, or was there no expectation that Messiah would suffer at all?

It does seem that the Jews hadn't understood that the Messiah would have to suffer, or that the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 was the Messiah. Apart from the verse you have quoted, there are other verses which suggest that the Jews didn't understand this.

They understood that the Christ would be the "King of Israel" (Matthew 15:32), they knew that he would be the one to govern the people of Israel (Matthew 2:6), but they didn't understand that his kingship was not of this world (John 18:36). They expected a political Messiah, one who would save them from their enemies in this world, not one who would "save his people from their sins" (Matthew 1:21). This is why, King Herod was troubled and all Jerusalem with him (Matthew 2:3), for he thought that the Christ would come and take his political throne from him.

Even after having the knowledge that he was indeed the Christ (Matthew 16:16), Peter rebuked him for saying that he would have to suffer. Even after he actually suffered and died, two of his disciples seemed to have no clue what was happening and Jesus said to them,

"O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?" (Luke 24:25-26)

And then Jesus had to interpret the scriptures for them, to show them all the things in the scriptures about the Christ (Luke 24:27).

So it does seem that to the Jews, it wasn't plain and clear from the scriptures that the Messiah had to suffer and in fact the evidence shows that they were expecting him to rule like a political king and not undergo suffering.


Did Pope Francis overstep any official Catholic boundary when he criticized Trump? Pope Francis implicitly criticized Donald Trump as not a Christian when he said, regarding Trump's proposed policy to build a wall between the USA and Mexico and immediately deport all illegal immigrants,:

  "A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not the [message of the] gospel."
  Pope Francis - CNN - February 18, 2016

Naturally, Trump disagreed with this entirely, saying that "No leader, especially a religious leader, should have the right to question another man's religion or faith" (ibid).

All politics aside and whether Pope Francis' actions lie within some American taboo, did Pope Francis overstep some known Catholic boundary when he chose to enter the fray of politics in the United States by expressing an opinion about the religious faith of a candidate?

There is no doctrine, policy or convention in the Catholic church that prevents a priest, or any church leader, from pronouncing on the rightness of some action or belief.

Historically, over the last thousand years or so, the Pope and other church leaders have pronounced on the policies and conduct of many world leaders. In recent times the Pope has condemned Apartheid, Communism, the Rwandan genocide, restrictions on the Cuban church, and much else.

It has to be pointed out that Pope Francis did not pronounce Trump a non-Christian, but pronounced the actions described to him by a questioner as those of a non-Christian, leaving open at least the possibility that the actions described in the question did not accurately reflect Trump's stance. Trump is also far from the only Presidential candidate both advocating wall-building and claiming to be Christian.


When does the obligation to attend Mass begin? Does the obligation to attend Mass begin after you have been baptized?

If you were baptized as a child do your parents have to bring you to Mass with them and after a certain age you must decide to go on your own?

[UPDATED, substantially revised, and corrected]

The short answer is that the obligation to attend Sunday Mass begins when children reach the age of reason, age seven at the earliest.

Children become subject to Canon Law as soon as they are baptized: Canon 96 of the Code of Canon Law [CIC] says,

  By baptism one is incorporated into the Church of Christ and is constituted a person in it with the duties and rights which are proper to Christians in keeping with their condition, insofar as they are in ecclesiastical communion and unless a legitimately issued sanction stands in the way.

However, merely ecclesiastical laws do not bind until the subject reaches the age of reason:

  Merely ecclesiastical laws bind those who have been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, possess the efficient use of reason, and, unless the law expressly provides otherwise, have completed seven years of age (Can. 11).

The obligation to attend Mass on Sundays and holy days is, in fact, an ecclesiastical law, found in Canon 1247:

  On Sundays and other holy days of obligation, the faithful are obliged to participate in the Mass.

Therefore, insofar as the child’s obligation is concerned, it cannot begin until the subject is seven years of age, and never applies if he is does not have the use of reason (e.g., the severely mentally handicapped).

Having said that, children still have certain rights as baptized Catholics that parents have the obligation to respect.

For example, all the Christian faithful (including children) have a right to be educated in the Faith:

  Since they are called by baptism to lead a life in keeping with the teaching of the gospel, the Christian faithful have the right to a Christian education by which they are to be instructed properly to strive for the maturity of the human person and at the same time to know and live the mystery of salvation. (Can. 217).

Moreover, parents have a duty to impart that education to their children:

  Therefore, it is for Christian parents particularly to take care of the Christian education of their children according to the doctrine handed on by the Church (Can. 226).

Since, starting at age seven, children will be obliged to live out their faith by attending Mass, they should be already used to attending Mass before that obligation begins.

Therefore, parents do have leeway regarding whether to bring very young children to Mass—which can be logistically difficult—but the goal should be to bring them to Mass as soon as that is feasible.

(Naturally, the obligation to be at home with young children constitutes one of the “grave” causes that can excuse someone from going to Mass, along with illness, the obligation to take care of the ill, etc.)

Source: “Are there any guidelines from the Church regarding bringing children to Mass?” from Catholic Answers. (Thanks to svidgen for pointing this out.)


Must a Christian disagree with Bernard Williams and say the concept of truth does have a history? The Analytic philosopher Bernard Williams believed that the concept of truth has no history: It is the same everywhere, for every culture and language, has been, and will be. He writes as follows in his book Truth and Truthfulness:

One thing I shall not consider, however, is the history
of the concept of truth, because I do not believe that there is any
such history. The concept of truth itself—that is to say, the quite
basic role that truth plays in relation to language, meaning, and
belief—is not culturally various, but always and everywhere the
same. We could not understand cultural variation itself without tak-
ing that role for granted. There are indeed scholarly books that
describe themselves as histories of the concept of truth, but they
typically describe conceptions, varying over time, of belief-forma-
tion, or of knowledge, or of the metaphysical structure of the world (62).

That is, for a sentence to be true in Ancient Greek means the same thing as what it means for a sentence to be true in contemporary Dutch (and so on).
Now, let us say Christians literally believe God is Truth. But clearly, God-in-the-world, for a Christian, has a history. He has always been the same, but the history of his actions in time is very much a history--he has not acted the same in all places and times. After the life of Christ, men and women could not achieve salvation but through Christ as manifest in the world. Even if the concept of God has not changed, God-in-the-world certainly did.
Question: Must a Christian disagree with Bernard Williams and say the concept of truth does have a history?

God has revealed himself. Progressively.
With each revelation, more can be known and understood.
The philosophical thesis you quote (and this may make the question off-topic on this site) falls down completely when one considers that God can only be known (by humans on earth) through the revelation that God gives of himself.
Until he gives it, at a point of time, that truth is not known and cannot be known.
Otherwise He who is truth cannot be known at all.
Therefore, truth does have a history.
That is to say, the body of truth, as made known by God in his word (and documented in holy writings) is a progressive revelation and has a history of such documentation.
By fully studying that documented revelation, you would then  realise that the statement :

... before the life of Christ, men and women could not achieve salvation through Christ . . .

. . . . is incorrect according to the progressive revelation of Deity recorded in holy scripture.
(You could ask more about that in a further, dedicated, question.)