What is the Scriptural Basis Against the Trinity Trinitarianism, or the Trinity, is the belief that God exists as three persons (God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit) seperate, but co-equal.

This view is labelled as a heresy by some denominations and orthodoxy by others. What are common Biblical and theological arguments against trinitarianism?

I can't argue from my own personal conviction, so these might not be the strongest arguments unitarians would assert. As much as it pains me not to offer the counterarguments, I will give them their say.

God is One

Critics of trinitarianism will point to there being almost no mention of any "persons of the Godhead" in the Old Testament (exceptions: Ge 1:26, Ge 11:7), and many instances of there being only one God. They will describe the three "persons" of the Trinity as being three separate gods because they are not a single, identical individual.

From the New Testament, they point to passages that suggest a fundamantal disunity between Jesus and God.

  John 17:3
  "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent."

  Mark 13:32 (NASB)
  "But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone."

  1 Timothy 2:5 (NASB)
  For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, ...

  1 Corinthians 8:6 (NASB)
  yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.

  Ephesians 4:5-6 (NASB)
  one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.

Some will also point to statements of Jesus submitting to the Father as proof of disunity.

Not-Biblical

Some will argue that the word "trinity" is not used in the New Testament, and that the Trinity is not equated with God in the same way that Jesus is.

Some will assert that the idea was not present in the early church.

Some will assert that because every mention (or some sort of numerical majority) of God does not simultaneously mention Jesus and the Holy Spirit, the Biblical authors cannot be asserting trinity.

Illogical

Some will argue that it just doesn't make sense (1+1+1=1?) and that God is not a god of confusion, and so since the idea of the Trinity is less emphatically asserted in the text (compared to Jesus' divinity, the need for Salvation, etc.), it is not an idea that ought to be embraced.

Some will argue that any time the Father knows something that Jesus doesn't, it makes no sense for Jesus to be God. Similarly, any time Jesus <verb> to the Father, such verbs are not reflexive and thus a trinitarian interpretation doesn't make sense.

Resources

Testimony of Scripture Against the Trinity
Oneness Versus Trinity
lots of links to oneness and trinity articles
Response to "Should You Believe in the Trinity?"
(It's anti-unitarian, but it does at least present their assertions fairly.)
Exposing Weak Arguments Against the Trinity
and the Deity of Jesus
(Again, this is anti-unitarian, but it does put forward the common assertions.)


Were all of Jesus' healings performed on the Sabbath? I was just reading in John 5:1-17 about Jesus healing the man at the pool in Jerusalem, and noticed that this happened on the Sabbath. That reminded me of Him healing the man with the withered hand on the Sabbath. So now I am wondering: were all of Jesus' healings performed on the Sabbath?

If the answer is no, please provide proof. I am especially interested in evidence from Scripture that marks a healing miracle as being performed by Jesus on a day other than the Sabbath.

Here are some instances where Jesus healed on the Sabbath: Matt. 12:9-14 // Mark 3:1-6 // Luke 6:6-11; Luke 13:10-17, 14:1-6; John 5:1-18, 9:1-34

I don't think there's any reason to suppose he restricted healings or other miracles to the sabbath. It seems he was much more free with his healings (cf. Mat. 9:35ff) and with his commands about healing (cf. Mat. 10:7f).

But one instance is enough to disprove the hypothesis: Jesus healed the ear of the servant in Luke 22:49f. Then according to 22:66, he was tried the next day (or later that day, depending on how days are reckoned) and then executed, and Luke identifies the following day after that as the Sabbath (23:54). Hence he healed on a day other than the Sabbath. QED


Which U.S. bishops are unfaithful to Church teaching on homosexuality and LGBT ideology? Which U.S. bishops are unfaithful to Church teaching on homosexuality and LGBT ideology?

Bishops unfaithful to Church teaching on
homosexuality

The Catechism teaches that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. Persons who suffer from same-sex attraction are called by the Church to live chaste lives. Homosexual “marriages” undermine God’s plan for the family, which is oriented to the rearing and educating of children through the indissoluble union of one man and one woman.

Cardinal Blase J. Cupich, Archdiocese of Chicago
Bishop Robert W. McElroy, Diocese of San Diego
Bishop Emeritus Patrick J. McGrath, Diocese of San Jose
Archbishop Wilton D. Gregory, Archdiocese of Washington
Archbishop John C. Wester, Archdiocese of Santa Fe

“LGBT” ideology

The so-called “Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, and Transgender” agenda attacks the traditional understanding of man as created in the image and likeness of God. The Church draws its unchangeable teaching on sexuality from Scripture, which states that God created them “male and female.” Pandering to this ideology is harmful to the faithful and endangers souls.

Auxiliary Bishop John P. Dolan, Diocese of San Diego
Cardinal Kevin Farrell, Prefect of the Dicastery for the Laity, Family and Life
Cardinal Joseph W. Tobin, Archdiocese of Newark
Cardinal Blase J. Cupich, Archdiocese of Chicago
Bishop Robert W. McElroy, Diocese of San Diego
Bishop John Stowe, Diocese of Lexington
Bishop James F. Checchio, Diocese of Metuchen
Bishop Gerald R. Barnes, Diocese of San Bernardino
Bishop Emeritus Patrick J. McGrath, Diocese of San Jose
Archbishop Wilton D. Gregory, Archdiocese of Washington
Archbishop John C. Wester, Archdiocese of Santa Fe

source: LifeSiteNews's Faithful Shephards initiative, which tracks the standing of bishops on many issues:

Abortion politics
Amoris Laetitia
Contraception
Education
Homosexuality
Liturgy
Marriage and Family Life
Pro-life leadership
Viganò testimony
“LGBT” ideology

Visit Faithful Shephards to urge these bishops to convert.


Election, Gods Sovereignty and Is Cain Saved? Does Calvinism (and those who believe in Unconditional Election) teach that Cain was elected to Salvation?

This is my source for defining Unconditional Election.

  Unconditional Election:
  God does not base His election on anything He sees in the individual. He chooses the elect according to the kind intention of His will (Eph. 1:4-8; Rom. 9:11) without any consideration of merit within the individual. Nor does God look into the future to see who would pick Him. Also, as some are elected into salvation, others are not (Rom. 9:15, 21).

Source: https://www.calvinistcorner.com/tulip.htm

My question is sincere, as I struggle with many of the doctrines of the Protestant Revolt, and find countless objections to the new teachings of especially Calvin.  How do you resolve the issue of Cain in Gen 4:6-7?

  “The Lord said to Cain, “why are you angry, and why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is couching at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it.”

In my understanding of Protestant doctrine of Election, God would have created Cain for destruction, or else he would have created him for Salvation.  God says that if Cain does well he will be accepted and if he does not well he will be consumed by sin?  If God created Cain for destruction, would not he have said,  “I have molded you for destruction, it is not in your power to do well, rather, I have made you this way for my Glory.” or something to that effect?  It seems rather that the dispensation of Cain resides entirely on his own free will, at least on the surface. Why would God offer to him something directly opposite to the purpose for which God created him, making it sound as if he could do otherwise than what he has done.

If the tradition of Unconditional Election is Truth, then Cain must have been a member of the Elect of God.  Otherwise, God would not have told him that he would be accepted if he did well.

I struggle with these Protestant doctrines because they seem to go against the grain in every case, like a jigsaw puzzle piece jammed into the wrong space.   When I hear sermons or teachings by the likes of James White or R.C. Sproul I hear what they are saying and unlike onlookers who nod in agreement having what appears to be a shared understanding that they too are fortunate to be part of the arbitrarily chosen elect, unlike myself destined for eternal damnation.  Which leaves me, if I was somehow convinced of Unconditional Election, to be the only person who accepts the Doctrine with the understanding that I’m not one of those elect!

Please explain how Cain might not be the Elect of God if his acceptance is subject to what he does.

Marc,

You are not alone in your struggles with the doctrine of predestination.  Many others (including myself) wrestle with these profound doctrines.

In your particular case where God is speaking to Cain, some light may be shed by observing that God is speaking here of "acceptance" which might also be translated "honored."  However, God is not telling Cain that he will be shown to be elected if he behaves righteously.  I know this seems like splitting hairs, but bear with me.

The Hebrew word used in Gen 4:6 is "seet" which can be elevation in the skin (like a scab or boil -- Lev 13) or elevation in prominence (see Job 13:11, 41:25).  God is telling Cain that if he does well, he will be honore.  Thus, we can see honor is a consequence of right behavior.  But, that does not mean election is the consequence.  If you do a word-study on "seet" you will find it never refers to "election" in any usage in the Bible.

"Election" is frequently in the Old Testament translated from "bahar" (to choose) or "yada" (to know).  In my brief reading, "bahar" seems to be time-based (e.g., Num 16:5-7, Deut 17:15, Is 42:1) and may be conditional (e.g., 1 Sam 16:7, 1Ch 28:10 and 1Ch 22:8).  However, God's "yada" of individuals seems often to have a timeless quality (implying fore-knowledge) and seems unconditional (e.g. Gen 18:19, Exo 33:12, Ps 37:18, Ps 139:4, Is 37:28).

Now in your question, you also speak of "mold[ing] for destruction" which goes beyond your cited source for election.  This is actually the doctrine of double-predestination.  Double-predestination is a logical conclusion if we take the doctrine of God's sovereignty to it's ultimate end, and I've seen people try to force that on many Calvinistic theologies.  Some Calvinists embrace it (including the original Calvinist: John Calvin), and some do not.  Per Wikipedia no Reformed (i.e., Calvinistic) tradition confesses Double Predestination.

Personally, I have wrestled with Double Predestination, but I find that while it appears a logically inescapable consequent, it also seems to go beyond Scripture.  The best biblical support for this doctrine (that I have seen) is Romans 10, but there are several issues with a Double Predestination interpretation of this passage (first and foremost, it is talking about the salvation of the Jews and not their damnation, also it is talking about whole nations and not individuals (except pharaoh who is the token for Egypt)).  Since I also believe that our logical systems are a second-hand observation of God's character (via creation), I find that I must submit first to the revelation of the God in the Bible.  If the Bible doesn't admit it as an inescapable conclusion, neither can I.

If you would like a deeper discussion Biblical discussion on the topic and the Hebrew words, I suggest you might want to ask the question on the Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange.


Why was eating meat on Fridays forbidden in the Catholic Church for so many years? I understand that the Catholic Church forbade people from eating meat on Fridays for many years.  It seems that it is no longer every Friday, but just during Lent.  Also, it is not all meat, but all meat that isn't fish (from what I understand).

How did this become considered a sin?  Why meat?  Why Fridays?  Why did it end?

From the USSCB:

  19. Changing circumstances, including economic, dietary, and social elements, have made some of our people feel that the renunciation of
  the eating of meat is not always and for everyone the most effective
  means of practicing penance. Meat was once an exceptional form of
  food; now it is commonplace.

  20. Accordingly, since the spirit of penance primarily suggests that we discipline ourselves in that which we enjoy most, to many in our
  day abstinence from meat no longer implies penance, while renunciation
  of other things would be more penitential.

I think the implication here is that meat, with the exception of fish, which was commonplace, was at the time of the Church Fathers an exceptional or "celebratory" form of food. Since we, at least in America, treat meat as more of a staple food, it's no longer so strongly associated with celebrations or feasts. That said, abstaining from it is still a worthy form of penance, is still encouraged, and is still required on Fridays during Lent.


Where does this Augustine quote come from? "Sin is believing the lie that you are self-created, self-dependent and self-sustained" -Augustine

Which work is this from?

Based on a google book search, I believe this quote comes from:

Title: Masterpieces of World Philosophy in Summary Form, Volume 1
Editor: Frank Northen Magill
Publisher: Salem Press, 1961

It appears to be available on Amazon, and I also found a very poor transcription on archive.org.

The quote in the book is:

  Expressed in another way, sin is living the lie of believing oneself to be self-created, self-sustained, self-dependent.

It's not exactly the same as the quote you find out there, but its pretty close, so what likely happened is the quote got mis-attributed to Augustine when it was actually a summary of his teaching.


Can we know the exact date of Resurrection? Wikipedia gives two possible dates for resurrection 7 Apr 30 and 3 Apr 33: I wonder why we cannot date the event with accuracy since we know the details : full moon on 14 Nisan. It would seem quite easy , with modern knowledges and techniques, to determine on what year the first vernal full moon took place on 14 Nisan, what are the problems?

It is indeed possible to calculate, within a few hours, the timings of full moons in the first century. Stochastic variations mean we cannot be more accurate.

The question asks whether we can apply the knowledge that there was a full moon on Nisan 14 to narrow down the possible years it could have been. Unfortunately this does not help. This is because Nisan like all Jewish and Islamic months only starts when the new moon is sighted. This means there is always a full moon on, or very close to, Nisan 14. We would be looking for a full moon occuring 14 days after a new moon became visible. Not a distinguishing feature.

Because the Resurrection was Sunday, and the Crucifixion believed to be Friday, this means that we are looking for a year in which the full moon was Thursday or Friday. We know there was a full moon on Thursday evening, April 6th, 30AD; and one on Friday afternoon, April 3rd, 33AD. In other years in the late twenties and early thirties the full moon was on a different weekday.

These dates are calculated according to the Roman calendar (Julian). We cannot say, with certainty, what date in the Jewish calendar, used in the first century,  was the equivalent to a Roman date. In principle these dates should have been Nissan 14. However the start of a month depended on actually seeing the crescent moon, and this depennded partly on the weather and the amount of sand in the air.

Furtermore, although the temple authorities aimed to ensure the Nisan full moon was the first full moon in Spring, there were other considerations. If there was a risk that the Nisan full moon would happen before the equinox they interposed an extra month, making Nisan later. Two other considerations were that the barley and wheat were developing. If they were not Nisan might be postponed leading to the Nisan full moon being the second full moon of Spring. This was because a barley offering was made at Passover time, and a Wheat offering at Pentecost. If the winter weather persisted later than usual Nisan might not be announced at the expected time.

We do not know the exact dates, in Roman terms, on which Passover occurred. We do know there was always a full moon on or close to Nisan 14, but that doesn't help.

The reason  AD30 and AD33 are the main candidates, rather than nearby years, is purely because the full moon was Thursday evening and Friday afternoon respectively.


How Christians explain that Isaiah 7:14 refers to a virgin? Fewer texts in the OT have been more important to the Christian church than Isaiah 7:14. To give a context let us go through a few ancient translations of Isaiah 7:14 in the Versions of the Old Testament.

Hebrew Masoretic of Isaiah 7:14

לָ֠כֵן יִתֵּ֨ן אֲדֹנָ֥י ה֛וּא לָכֶ֖ם אֹ֑ות הִנֵּ֣ה הָעַלְמָ֗ה הָרָה֙ וְיֹלֶ֣דֶת בֵּ֔ן וְקָרָ֥את שְׁמֹ֖ו עִמָּ֥נוּ אֵֽל׃

The Jews of the second century AD did not interpret העלמה as a virgin as St. Justin Martyr's dialogue with Trypho demonstrates. Therefore, the text probably should be read in a neutral way, the young woman will conceive and give birth to a son as intended by the surrounding context of that text without excluding a possibility that the young woman might be a virgin.

We can compare both MSS and DSS with LXX which differ from one another. There is no known manuscript or fragment of Isaiah 7:14 which use בתולה instead of העלמה. Perhaps the real issue should be whether or not the word בתולה, which always means virgin, was used in Isaiah for that purpose. The answer is, yes, it is used in Isaiah 62:5. LXX translated both indistinguishably with ἡ παρθένος, a virgin.

St. Jerome was the only Christian to argue from the Hebrew text, who concluded that the Hebrew העלמה should be read as virgo, if even in a periphrastic way.  Jerome actually believed that the Hebrew העלמה meant abscondita “hidden.”  Therefore the girl in Isaiah 7:14 was more than a virgin.  She was a cloistered girl, which necessitates virginity.

Greek Septuagint of Isaiah 7:14

διὰ τοῦτο δώσει κύριος αὐτὸς ὑμῖν σημεῖον ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει καὶ τέξεται υἱόν καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Εμμανουηλ.

Its reading  is found in Matthew 1:21 and it has become the proof text of the virgin birth of Christ for the Church among the Church Fathers. But to translate a Hebrew word העלמה the Greek Septuagint calls Dinah as ἡ παρθένος in Genesis 34:3 after being raped in a verse earlier.

The readings of Aquila and Theodotion, two of the Three Jewish revisers of the LXX in the first and second centuries clearly remove the idea of chaste woman from the text.  Of course a young woman might incidentally be a virgin, but their usage of ἡ νεᾶνις renders the Hebrew העלמה and implies that the conception and the birth of the son will happen in the natural way.

How Christians explain that Isaiah 7:14 refers to a virgin? Can such passage be read textually as referring to a young cloistered maiden while maintaining that it necessitates virginity as suggested by Jerome because it's a sign to support a Christian doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ?1

1 I appreciate Justin’s argument from the Greek word σημειον in Dialogue 84.  In essence he argues that it would not be a divine sign if the woman would give birth in the natural way.  The sign is precisely that because the Messiah would be born in a supernatural way by a virgin. But Jews argue that the sign isn't alluding to a virgin birth.

Regardless of later usage, exegesis should look at the original language and the likely original meaning of a text. In the original Hebrew, Isaiah 7:14 uses the word 'almah, which means 'young woman' and is used only in this sense in nine other references in the Old Testament.  The Hebrew word for 'virgin' is betulah and is used exclusively in that sense more than fifty times in the Hebrew Bible. Ian Wilson says in Jesus, page 46, that while 'almah carries a general connotation of eligibility for marriage, this does not necessarily mean virginity. Nevertheless, nearly all English-language Christian Bibles say 'virgin' in Isaiah 7:14.

In chapter 7, in the reign of Ahaz, Jerusalem has survived a threat from Assyria and now the Aramaeans and Israelites (Ephraim) are the next threat (*). However, in 7:7-9, the Lord tells Isaiah that they will not succeed, and that Israel will be destroyed within just sixty five years (... within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people.). He offers to provide Ahaz with a sign from God, to dissuade him from forming an alliance with Assyria, but Ahaz refuses. Isaiah presses the point, saying that a son shall be born, called Immanuel, and that he will be holy and there will be peace and prosperity.  In other words, I propose that Isaiah believed that this good news would help him persuade the king that God favoured Isaiah’s advice (**).

In spite of Christian tradition, this oracle could probably be linked to the birth of a royal baby in Isaiah 9:5-6:

  For a child is born to us, a son is given us; upon his shoulder dominion [kingship] rests. They name him Wonder-Counselor, God-Hero, Father-Forever, Prince of Peace. His dominion is vast and forever peaceful, From David's throne, and over his kingdom, which he confirms and sustains By judgment and justice, both now and forever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this!

(*) At this stage, we must distinguish Israel (Ephraim) from Judah. They were separate nations and occasionally at war, as in this case. In later centuries, Judah glossed over these differences and adopted the name ‘Israelite’ for themselves, perhaps with a view to justifying  a claim on the rich northern lands of what was later known as Samaria, in line with its chief city and capital, Samaria.

(**)  I used to think that 7:14 refers to the prophet's wife and her baby (Isaiah 8:3), simply because of the proximity to 7:14, but I admit I was being lazy - a son born to a sometimes irritating prophet is not a sign that would make a king feel blessed by God . As I understood Isaiah better, I realised that the reference was to the royal baby mentioned in 9:5-6. In particular, only the expectation of a son would make the king feel blessed by God and willing to heed the words of his prophet. Isaiah 9:5-6 describes the king's son in raptuous terms, followed in the remainder of chapter 9 by news of the defeat of Israel, which had so recently threatened Judah.


What reasons do Catholics have for believing Jesus is God? Through natural reason and personal experience, I have come to be convinced that many of the Catholic Church's teachings are good and accurate.  In addition, by reading Aristotle and Aquinas, I have come to see that there is a compelling natural argument for the existence of some sort of creator-God. I don't know that this argument convinces me, but I can at least comprehend it and think about it.

That being said, there are many things in Catholicism that cannot be determined by natural reason alone -- the Trinity, the Immaculate Conception, etc. I find this sort of thing difficult to accept. Even more than difficult to accept, I find them difficult to think about. They are stories, they have value as stories, and there is certainly truth encoded in those stories. But are they factually true stories?  How could I know, and how do I even begin to think about that question? "God is one being with three persons" seems exactly as plausible to me as "God is one being with two persons".

One particular issue I am looking at right now is the assertion of the divinity of Jesus.  This is an idea that is at the core of Christianity and at the core of Catholicism. And I find it to be difficult to choose to believe:  putting aside the mental gymnastics of the Trinity, the idea that a man who walked the earth was actually 100% God, the creator of everything, etc., is a very big assertion.

So my question is this: what reason(s) might a non-Christian, non-Jew be given to be believe that Jesus is in fact God?  Historical examples of conversions and reasons for conversion are invited, as well as any other evidence or reasons.  I'm not looking for conclusive "proof" (a silly idea), but I am looking for reasons.  I am looking for ideas that parallel Aquinas's Five Ways or Chesteron's article Why I am A Catholic, but speak particularly about the assertion of the Divinity of Jesus.

Given that I am currently trying to understand the teachings of the Catholic Faith in particular, I am primarily interested in answers that have a Catholic background. I mean no disrespect to Protestants, Orthodox, or any other Christians.

Right expectation of reason & practical use of the Trinity
Aquinas's 5 ways is like a lens for reason to apprehend God as much as we are allowed to see with our reason alone.  The Chesterton's essay you mentioned is a great defense of Catholicism as a collective mind guarding the truth, which goes beyond reason to produce wisdom for believers, which he likened to a map of the maze, to navigate our way to the Truth in the midst of confusing half-truths and half-religions offered by the world.  If you trust Chesterton's presentation of Catholicism, isn't it reasonable to learn what Catholicism has to say on the divinity of Jesus, starting with her exegesis of the New Testament, her preservation and elucidation of the Patristic writings, and her deliberations and documents issued through the historical councils?  (The third section of my answer provides a rough outline)
From your question, it looks like your predicament is to make revelation fit to reason as a prerequisite to belief.  This is something that Chesterton himself has written about (specifically Chapter 2 "The Maniac" of his apologetic book Orthodoxy), and can result in madness because mad people try to fit things that are too big into a neat system (see the topic revisited here).  Chesterton values reason and logic, but he knows their limits.  St. Thomas Aquinas also knows the limits of reason although he expanded the field that can be known by reason so wide that even the modern philosophers shrunk in fear from it, cowardly narrowing the area that they say can be known by reason!  Therefore, not only modern philosophers try to fit God into their systems, they even narrow the capabilities of reason before they do that!  Double madness, in my opinion.
While I agree with you that "there is compelling natural argument for the existence of creator-god", the same cannot be expected to discover the loving, just, and merciful character of God the Father, let alone the divinity of Jesus.  It has to come via revelation, but it can still be apprehended by reasonable faith.  We can use reason to assess the recorded testimonies of the revelation (NT writings plus the apostolic tradition) to re-present Jesus to us today, but accepting the claims of Jesus needs more than reason.  For instance, a lot of people who came across Jesus face to face and who witnessed His miracles while He was still on earth (i.e. revelation in person) did not accept Jesus's claims to be God, most notably some of the Pharisees.  Today, proper reading of the New Testament plus the testimony of the Holy Spirit in our hearts replace the face-to-face benefit that people in Jesus's own time had.
Catholicism, just like mainline Christian denominations, is very practical.  We are beings in need, God is the only supplier.  We don't need to completely understand the ingredients of spiritual food, we just eat and drink (as in communion).  Let God be God, and let human be human, who doesn't need to understand God completely to "use" Him.  We are like children who eat what our parents gave us when we were kids.
Similarly, we don't need to fit Trinity to reason, we just use the best definitions that the councils have produced.  I'm in software development; I don't need to understand how compilers and OS kernel works (although I can, since I have the training in Computer Science) but why bother?  I just read the documentation on how to use the compiler and how to call the kernel system call APIs.  It's a matter of trust (faith).  Do I trust the documentation to represent faithfully the compiler / OS Kernel?  Do I trust this compiler not to mess up my input?  Do I trust that this OS kernel has not had rootkit in it to turn my program into a booby trap that can extort people for money?  With good reason, I trust Microsoft Visual Studio 2019 and Microsoft Windows 10 Operating System.  (Some Linux die hard will think I'm mad :-) )
So Catholics trust Chesterton's map of the maze to find true north, and it's by using Catholic-produced Trinitarian understanding of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.  From practical standpoint it's quite straightforward, and the data (the input) to the doctrine of Trinity is easy to understand (by reading the Bible carefully):

Jesus as prophet revealed God the Father to us, including His plan of the New Covenant.  He spent quality face to face time (about 3 years) with the 1st generation apostles teaching them many things, demonstrating miracles which only God the Father can produce as authentication.  His resurrection and subsequent appearance to the 1st generation apostles was the clincher and proof that He was a true prophet.
Jesus also claimed He was the only begotten Son of God the Father, making Him equal to God the Father.  John the Baptist (another prophet) was one of the witness when heaven opened and God the Father Himself testified that Jesus was His Son (see Matt 3:17).
When Jesus ascended back to the Heaven from where He came, He sent his Holy Spirit so He can still be with the believers entrusted to Him by the Father, but in a better way: closer to our hearts, and can be in many places at the same time (not limited to a single body while Jesus was still on earth).  Of course, because Holy Spirit is Jesus's spirit, and also God the Father's spirit, the Holy Spirit is also Divine.

Catholic Catechism paragraphs 1996-1999 is a good illustration how the Trinity is critical for our salvation:

1996 Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.
1997 Grace is a participation in the life of God. It introduces us into the intimacy of Trinitarian life: by Baptism the Christian participates in the grace of Christ, the Head of his Body. As an "adopted son" he can henceforth call God "Father," in union with the only Son. He receives the life of the Spirit who breathes charity into him and who forms the Church.
1998 This vocation to eternal life is supernatural. It depends entirely on God's gratuitous initiative, for he alone can reveal and give himself. It surpasses the power of human intellect and will, as that of every other creature.
1999 The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. It is the sanctifying or deifying grace received in Baptism. It is in us the source of the work of sanctification:

Therefore if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself. [2 Cor 5:17-18]

And that's all there is to it to "use" Trinity in our faith life.  It's a matter of trust (similar to my trust in Microsoft products) which leads to practical actions: what do we do about it?  The Good News demands a response.  For what it's worth, in the next section I'll share my personal response, which is rather typical of many Christians, while trying to address why I believe Jesus is God, not just prophet / wise man.
A reason to believe Jesus is God (not just prophet / wise man)
You wrote:

I think this is both a really good answer and it also doesn't answer the thing I am trying to point at -- why? Why would someone who doesn't believe this choose to instead believe it?
I do not believe in Jesus or God in the way Christians do, no. That is why I'm asking the question. Catholicism has taught me a lot and I respect the Church's teachings, but this belief (among others) stands out as a difficult one to accept. I'm wondering why other people have chosen to believe it. I'm not asking for proof like one might prove 2+2=4 (it's not that sort of question); I'm asking for reasons.

If I may take your comment lightheartedly it sounds like you're a customer who would like the seller of the Christian doctrine to convince you into buying the product "Jesus is God" rather buying other seller's product "Jesus is just a prophet" or even another product "Jesus is just a wise man".  And you want to hear customer testimonials why "Jesus is God" product works better for them so thereby giving you reasons to consider before buying.  Fair enough.  I respect that approach, and I would think Jesus Himself would have approved potential buyers to count the cost first before following Him.
I chose my screenname GratefulDisciple to reflect that I'm grateful to God that He has extended an invitation to me to be a "proud owner" of the product.  It's a badge of honor to be a disciple of Jesus, but as you can see in the "count the cost" link above, it's a product that "owns you" instead, so God (through Jesus & the Holy Spirit) can "fully manage" your life and shepherd you into eternal life.
Why would you buy a product that owns you?  If you are in IT (like I do), you know it's the cloud era.  "Managed product" (aka software as a service) is the mantra.  You no longer own a software, not even a hardware.  It's like leasing a car.  You pay a monthly amount, no worries.  Accident?  Insurance takes care of it.  Mechanical issue?  Take it to the dealer.  Want a newer model?  Start a new lease period.  Your experience is better and better, and you are very productive, as long as you keep paying and you are okay with not owning the product.  Signing your life off to Jesus is the same way.  You give up control in exchange for total protection and total happiness (although not the kind of happiness that the world offers).
If Jesus were just a prophet or a wise man, I would not be getting total protection from Him.  A prophet is someone who says and/or shows something true about God, which may or may not be previously hidden.  A wise man is someone who teaches the way to success by explaining principles of life that are hard to obtain, the way master teacher trains an apprentice over many years.  Jesus was a prophet because He revealed the new covenant to us, i.e. the invitation to become children of God.  Jesus was also a wise man who taught that the way to eternal life (success) was by obeying the new covenant commandments, just like in the OT the way to God's blessing was by obeying the Torah.
But without Him being God as well, there was no new covenant and no total protection since being inducted into the new covenant involves buying into His identity as the Son of God and accepting all the consequences (like Jesus managing your life).  Or in Christian-speak, calling Jesus your Lord (a.k.a your #1 Boss) in exchange for a protection "contract" in which He is willing to die for you FIRSTLY to "buy you out" from the devil, SECONDLY to protect you from subsequent Satan's attacks who tries to get you back through temptations, and FINALLY to represent you as your attorney + bail-money on the Day of Judgment.  A mere prophet or wise man cannot give you that service.
Catholics' defense of the Divinity of Jesus across 2,000 years
The true nature of Jesus as 100% human and 100% God was clear to the 1st generation apostles and is still clear to us from the canonized 27 New Testament writings alone.  A good example of how the New Testament alone can show the divinity of Jesus can be read via an article by a well known Catholic apologist Tim Staples on how to answer Jehovah's Witness who does not believe Jesus is God and who does not believe in the authority other than the Bible text.
But in response to various heresies which developed in the first 400 years or so, the still united Catholic church had to clarify this teaching through several definitive councils, notably the Council of Nicaea (AD 325), the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451), and several church councils in between.  The article Jesus Christ, True God and True Man from Opus Dei, a Catholic spiritual formation organization, provides a good historical development of the doctrine.
In addition, early church fathers also wrote about the Divinity of Jesus, usually in their apologetic works.  Some quotes from individual church fathers can be read in a Catholic tract the Divinity of Christ.
St. Augustine of Hippo who wrote between AD 368 and AD 430, focused on combating the Manicheans, the Donatists, the Pelagians, and the Arians.  Only his writings against the Arians had to do with the true nature of Jesus, which is part of the larger effort outlined in the Opus Dei article above.  So his task was of refining rather than defending the Divinity of Jesus, which was already uncontested since he lived post-Nicaea.
St. Thomas of Aquinas who wrote between AD 1256 and AD 1273 was in another era altogether (High Middle Ages).  He no longer had to defend the Divinity of Jesus, but rather Christianity as a whole against Islam and also to reconcile the renaissance of Aristotelian philosophy (came via the Moslem scholars) with the Neoplatonic philosophy inherent in St. Augustine's theology, which made him famous as the most successful Catholic Doctor of the Church who was able to strike the right balance between Reason and Faith via his own adaptation of Aristotelian philosophy while maintaining orthodoxy in recasting Church Fathers teachings (including St. Augustine) in Aristotelian terms.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a more formal treatment of the History of the Trinitarian Doctrines which includes quotes from St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas but this is more of a philosophical analysis of the various conceptions of the Trinity rather than why Catholics believe Jesus is God.  That is an excellent resource to show what reason can do with the doctrine of Trinity, and complexity-wise, it's on par with Aquinas's 5 ways.  But does it help to accept the claim that Jesus is divine?  I don't think so.
Jumping to the past 100 years, the Divinity of Jesus was under fresh attack by liberal theologians of all stripes (Catholic / Protestant leanings), philosophers, and various projects undermining the reliability of the New Testament.  In defending the faith, Catholic and Protestant scholars often join forces, quoting each other in their scholarly books such as the 3 volume Jesus of Nazareth by Pope Benedict XVI (published AD 2007, 2011, 2012) and Jesus and the Victory of God by N.T. Wright (published AD 1996).  The Catholic church documents in this era were more of relevancy of Jesus to the Faithful such as

Jesus as the incarnation of Mercy (Dives in Misericordia, AD 1980)

Jesus as the incarnate love of God (Deus Caritas Est, AD 2005)

Of course I cannot leave out the Catholic Catechism which teaches Jesus as the Son of God in Chapter 2, Article 2.


Is a marriage between a transman and transwoman in accordance with Roman Catholic canon law? Is a marriage between a transman and transwoman in accordance with Roman Catholic canon law?

The transman and transwoman can still engage in intercourse to make babies, but the transman would be the one to get pregnant, assuming that they still have functional sex organs.

I am asking this question, because I am not sure whether transsexuality itself is a sin or whether the act of going against procreative sex is a sin. I believe the answer may reflect how the clerics will handle a case where the participants involved in the wedding are one transman and one transwoman.

TR;DR
So long as the persons have not rendered themselves impotent, there is nothing preventing two transgender persons from marrying one another.
However, the Church essentially recognizes only the so-called biological sex of the persons. Hence, she would regard the transgender “man” as a woman, and the transgender “woman” as a man.
In general, the Church holds that the faithful have a strict right to the sacrament of matrimony, provided the candidates are one man and one woman, and there are no impediments (e.g., when at least one of the parties is already married to someone else, or impotent).
Hence, although transgenderism is deeply problematic (for the reasons I will mention below), that would not prevent a couple from marrying.
The background behind this
There is very little in Church documents regarding transexualism, because it is a relatively new phenomenon (at least, it did not become a major issue for the Church until very recently). It is not mentioned at all in Canon Law.
Pope Francis has spoken out against so-called gender theory (see, for example, the general audience on April 15, 2015), which asserts that a person’s sex (his biological configuration as male or female) is distinct from his gender (his subjective perception of being man or woman).
The problematic aspect of this theory is not so much that these two notions are distinct (they evidently are, because empirically, gender dysphoria does exist) but the idea that “biological” sex is malleable—that it can be changed by a mere external procedure (such as surgery or hormone treatment).
However, sound philosophical principles, backed up by good science, and reiterated in the Bible, can help to answer the question.
Man is one and whole
The first and most important principle is that a human being is one and whole. Man is not (as René Descartes famously asserted) a spirit that happens to be united to a body—as if the spirit and the body were separate beings. (See Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy, II, in which he explains res cogitans—i.e., the soul—and how it relates to res extensa—realites that are “extended” in space, including our body.)
Rather, each person is a unique and undivided being. His body is just as much a part of his being as his soul—so much so that it can only be separated from his soul with the greatest violence. (We call that “death.”)
Gaudium et spes, Vatican II’s pastoral constitution on the Church in the modern world, sums up this idea succinctly:

Though made of body and soul, man is one. … For this reason man is not allowed to despise his bodily life, rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and honorable since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day (Gaudium et spes, 14).

Indeed, a person’s bodily life is entirely imbued with and ennobled by his soul. It follows that even his biological functions—especially one as fundamental and profound as his sexuality—are most closely united to his soul.
Male and female he created them
A person’s “biological sex,” therefore, is given to a person from the moment of his conception, and it cannot be changed: it is far too fundamental a part of his being. Indeed, a person’s sex endures for all eternity. Although we can know this through reason alone, the Bible beautifully sums up this principle when it says,

So God created man [understood generically, as in “mankind”] in his own image,in the image of God he created him;male and female he created them (Genesis 1:27).

As the Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it,

Man and woman have been created, which is to say, willed by God: on the one hand, in perfect equality as human persons; on the other, in their respective beings as man and woman. “Being man” or “being woman” is a reality which is good and willed by God: man and woman possess an inalienable dignity which comes to them immediately from God their Creator (No. 369, emphasis added).

Consequently, the sex that a person is born with is the sex that he will possess for life (indeed, as mentioned, for all eternity). No amount of surgery or other treatment can change it. Catholics would encourage those experiencing gender dysphoria to seek professional help to manage or overcome it.
Regarding the marriage of transgender persons
For these reasons, the Church can only consider the sex that persons possessed from birth (in reality, from conception) when assessing whether a couple is able to marry. If one or both of the parties happens to be transgender, that is a secondary issue, so long as one man (male at birth) marries one woman (female at birth).


Why are there Sibyls and Prophetesses in the Sistine Chapel? For what purpose did Michelangelo add each Sibyls or Prophetesses to the ceiling of the Sistine chapel?
This is an explanation to why they're there in the first place.

The latter, although belonging to the pagan world, are represented here because of their prophetic gifts, in this way extending the wait for Redemption from the chosen people to all mankind.

I'd imagine they each have some sort of story - or at least represent some different part of the pre-redemption world and pointed in some vague way to Christ.  But what is the vague way?
Here are the Sibyls:

Erythrean Sibyl

Persian Sibyl

Libyan Sibyl

Cumaean Sibyl

Delphic Sibyl

Source

There is a history to those Sibyl.
First of all, the word Sibyl means Prophetess, and this word was originated from Greek.

Erythrean Sibyl appears as the one who has prophesied the Redemption in arts.
Persian Sibyl seems to be the priestess who occupied over Apollo Oracle.
Libyan Sibyl was priestess who was the presiding over Zeus Ammon Oracle.
Cumaean Sibyl was the pristess who were the head of the Apollo Oracle at Cumae.
Delphic Sibyl was a figure who made prophecies at Delphi.

In short, they are in a way not related to the Christianity. However, the reason for them to be depicted at the ceiling is because some of their prophecy was in a way related to the prophesying the coming of Christ. For example, Cumaean Sibyl was told to be declaring a new progeny of Heaven would bring about a return of the "Golden Age". This was thought of prophesying the coming of Christ.


Is there a Catholic council that established the dogma that the eschaton is in "Heaven" rather than in the Promised Land? I imagine that the details of the afterlife were disputed as have all points of doctrine. Was the matter settled into dogma at a particular Council? I'd like to find out the details of who championed which views and with what arguments.

It appears that a belief in a new creation which would have some earthly aspect to it has never been abandoned, though this is not well-known.  See The Catholic Encyclopedia (1917) on the New Advent website under "Eschatology," the last paragraph:

  There is mention also of the physical universe sharing in the general consummation (2 Peter 3:13; Romans 8:19 sqq.; Revelation 21:1 sqq.). The present heaven and earth will be destroyed, and a new heaven and earth take their place.


Did any groups or noted theologians in early Christian history teach that the Holy Spirit is matriarchal? Count Zinzendorf came to the aid of the Moravian Brethren.  He held that the Holy Spirit was matriarchal. Are there any teachings of this perspective in early church history?

The theory of Matriarchal Holy Spirit is a Gnostic Heresy. It doesn't have anything to do with the scriptures.

Jesus addresses the Holy Spirit by the masculine gender in the following verses of John 14:26

  But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my
  name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I
  have said to you.

And also in John 15

  John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you
  from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the
  Father, he shall testify of me.

Those who believe in a Matriarchal Holy Spirit are simply alluding to the fact that many in this world tends to understand God by things of the world that are
clearly visible.  They believe that since the human family on earth comprises
of a husband, wife, and son, the family in heaven too should comprise of God the
Father, the Holy Spirit as Mother, and Jesus as the Son.

Also remember the present day proponents of the idea of a Matriarchal Holy Spirit are some of the feminist groups and not any seriously religious groups.


Before the fall of Adam, did anything die? This seems like a simple question, but I cannot find a clear answer. The book of Genesis (1:29,30), implies that Adam just ate "plants and herbs". So I think it is safe to assume animals were not eaten? Now if animals did die, my question would be "why"?

The views of Christians on this matter can basically be divided into two.

A key passage here is Romans 5:12-21, which says:

  Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned— To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come. But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ! Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21 so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Young Earth Creationists - before Adam sinned, nothing died

In the literalist view, the interpretation of the passage above is that Death is punishment for sin, and nature as subservient to mankind shares in Adam's fall. Therefore all death, even of animals, is a result of sin, and did not occur until Adam sinned.

This passage is used as one of the chief Biblical arguments that Genesis 1 should be taken literally and not metaphorically. If there were indeed millions of years of evolution before Adam, then these could not have happened without death and this passage would be contradicted.

As you already stated, Adam and Eve were vegetarians, so there was no need for there to be animal death in order for them to eat. (In fact it is not until Noah that humans are allowed to eat animals).

Other Christians - Physical death of animals did in fact happen before the fall

If you do not hold to the Young Earth beliefs then it is clear that death of animals must have occurred before the fall. The interpretation of the Romans 5 passage is that it is about only the death of humans - death for animals is entirely natural and not the result of sin. (The NIV quoted above takes this line in its translation, but not all translations do). Some also take it to mean 'spiritual death' - i.e. that humans were always destined for a physical death, but that people would know that they were destined to pass on after death to be with God, and it would be entirely natural and nothing to be afraid of. After the fall humans would also suffer spiritual death, i.e. eternal separation from God. The Bible does elsewhere use the word 'death' to refer to spiritual death and not physical death.

If you hold that the Fall is metaphorical rather than literal then it isn't an issue.


What did "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles" say about the Epiphany? I was reading the "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles" to answer another question on this site and chanced upon a strange tidbit that I don't understand the meaning of:

The apostles further appointed: Celebrate the day of the Epiphany of our Saviour, which is the chief of the festivals of the Church, on the sixth day of the latter Canun, in the long number of the Greeks.
"Teaching of the Twelve Apostles"

What I'd like to know is:

What day of the year was that?

Was this the same Epiphany we know today (i.e., January 6th or thereabouts)?

Why was this the "chief of the festivals?" (What about Easter and Pentecost?)

First of all, it's worth noting the this work is not the first century Didache, which also goes by the name "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles," or even the third century Didascalia Apostolorum.  Instead, it's an ancient Syriac document, typically dated to the fourth century (see, for example, Witakowski), which is about the same time as the writing of the Apostolic Constitutions.

The same translation of the work is available with commentary in Pratten's Syriac Documents, which sheds a little light on your questions.

First, regarding the date, this is indeed January 6, as Pratten writes in reference to the "latter Canun":

  January: the Jewish Tebeth. "The former Canun" is December, i.e. Chisleu.

As for other holidays, it's not immediately clear why only this one appears – not even Christmas is mentioned, as Pratten notes:

  See Ap. Const. v. 13, where Christmas, of which no mention is made in these Ordinances, is called "the first of all," the Epiphany being ranked next to it.]

Chapter 5.13 of the Apostolic Constitutions places Christmas first, then Epiphany, and then Lent:

  Brethren, observe the festival days; and first of all the birthday which you are to celebrate on the twenty-fifth of the ninth month; after which let the Epiphany be to you the most honoured, in which the Lord made to you a display of His own Godhead, and let it take place on the sixth of the tenth month; after which the fast of Lent is to be observed by you as containing a memorial of our Lord’s mode of life and legislation.

So it's not surprising that Epiphany would be considered above Easter or Pentecost.  But what about Christmas?  The likely reason for the text's apparent disregard of it is that it viewed Epiphany as celebrating all aspects of Christ's birth and early life.  This was apparently common in Syriac writings; for example, Epiphanius quotes Ephrem the Syrian as saying:

  Thus the advent of our Lord Jesus Christ, his birth in the flesh or perfect incarnation which is called the Epiphany, was revealed... (source)

For more on the history of Epiphany, see Wikipedia's helpful treatment; it confirms many of the details I've found covered in works like the Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity.


Do cases of scientific foreknowledge in the Bible come from Exegesis or Eisegesis? There are many apologists who say that scientific knowledge can be found in the Scriptures, although they are not really explicit. [The only fact I can see clearly stated is that the Universe had a beginning (Genesis 1:1; John 1:3, 17:24; Romans 1:20).] Here are a few examples of scientific foreknowledge in the Bible:

The universe is expanding (Isaiah 45:12, 40:22, 42:5; Job 9:8; Psalms 104:2)
The correct description of the stars (Job 38:31-32)
The water cycle (Genesis 8:22; Job 36:27-28; Psalms 135:7; Ecclesiastes 1:7; Amos 9:6)
The Earth is round (Job 26:7; Isaiah 40:22)
Ocean currents (Psalms 8:8)
First law of thermodynamics (Genesis 2:1)
Second law of thermodynamics (Psalms 102:25-26)
And many more

Are theses intances of a later development to accommodate Scripture to modern science or were they understood like that by Christians in different eras?

No. It's not science - go speak to a scientist to find out. Or better still, actually study some science.
If a text mentions a tree am I suddenly a botanist?
The Bible mentions what it does because it is also about the world. Because humans live in a world and its presenting a certain cosmogony about the relationship of humans to the world around them.
edit
@curiousdanii: Whilst God knows more about trees than we will ever do; reading the Bible doesn't make us into God - to think so is, in the Christian dispensation - blasphemy. Which is why we still have to study trees and much else to become a botanist. So what's your point?


Are there any Unitarian Catholic Churches? Preface to Question:

Weird question, I know that Catholicism's orthodox teachings are trinity, so this question is strange to me also.

Growing up, I was not raised catholic and believed that Jesus was God and still hold that clear teaching of scripture, but I remember arguing with a child in Jr. High who was catholic and said, "Jesus is not God, he is God's son," and denying that Jesus should receive any worship.

At first sound, this sounds like a kid that was misunderstanding the trinity. But growing up I was always told that Catholics in the area didn't believe Jesus was God.

Catholicism in general agrees on the same dogmas, but every now and then, many do disagree on small issues. Is this a wide spread thing?

Yes but they are a modern phenomenon, and they go by the named of Arian rather than Unitarian.   They also are small groups, largely based on the Internet.

  Arian Catholicism is an Internet Church, founded in 2006, claiming to teach true Christianity. The church is Arian in nature but not Anomoean and follows the teachings of Arius of Alexandria - that Jesus was a man to be followed, not worshipped, who was the spiritual Son of God. God the Father and the Son of God were not co-eternal, nor of the same substance. Arian Catholics believe that Christianity was hijacked during the fourth century; that the Romans integrated Christianity with Paganism and the Roman State; the Romans introduced Trinitarianism, altering the ecumenism of the church; and that the Romans destroyed scriptures that were not in keeping with the newly authorised beliefs.

  According to their website, the official symbol of the Arian Catholic Church is the Chi-Rho cross, in preference to the crucifix or the other types of cross.

  Arian doctrine was historically deemed heresy by Trinitarian Christians, but the Arian Catholic Church likewise deem Trinitarian Christians to be heretics and apostates.

http://religion.wikia.com/wiki/Arian_Catholicism

Note -  This group has either changed a lot, or another group has taken over with that name!  A few days ago I ran across an Arian Catholic Church but it was "non-dogmatic" advertised itself as far as "inclusivity" (Women in ministry, gay friendly etc.).   I however have had trouble finding that web site again (may be off line now).

https://www.facebook.com/arian.catholic.church/?tn-str=k*F

There is a smilar "Orthodox" Arian group here.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCRM2ela4Hr612CjTvIJCUbw

I seem to recall seeing other groups using the words "Essene" and "Nazarene" (which can mean a number of other things including New Age and Messianic Jewish/Hebrew Roots), but haven't seen anymore recently.


Is it a sin or forbidden to follow any of the parts of the Law of Moses? In John 7:53-8:11, Jesus condemns fulfilling the Law of Moses when it requires that a crowd stone an adulteress to death. This seems to imply (if these passages are authentic, which is in question) that in some cases fulfilling the Law of Moses is now sinful.

Even if this passage is not authentic, there are parts of the Law of Moses that now seem rather barbaric. These laws requiring the killing your children if they are stubborn and rebellious (Deuteronomy 21:18-21), killing a rape victim for not putting up sufficient resistance (Deuteronomy 22:23-24), and killing those who commit blasphemy or believe in a different religion (Leviticus 24:16; Deuteronomy 13:5-10 respectively).

Are there some cases where it is sinful or forbidden to follow any of the laws in the Old Testament, now that Jesus has fulfilled these laws (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23-25; Ephesians 2:15)?

A very good and very similar question is: To what extent does the Law of Moses still apply? and also:
Do we have to obey the laws of the bible? If so, what laws?
Even though these are questions that I'm interested in and still find somewhat confusing, in this question I'm looking for additional insights (scripture or scholarly) about whether it is now sinful or forbidden to follow any of the Laws of Moses (including the ceremonial laws for which we are no longer bound). Answers meant to address which of these laws are forbidden are better suited for these questions.

The topic of the law in relation to the Gospel is one of the most discussed ones in the entire history of theology. The space here is not sufficient for arguing one view as opposed to the other. I am going to answer your question with a simple "yes", though. Sometimes a contextless, literalistic application of Old Testament law is in fact sinful, and I am going to base that on three principles.

Rabbinic wisdom in the tradition of Hillel. When one law contradicts another in a specific circumstance, you must chose the most important one. E.g. when asked by Gestapo about the whereabouts of some hidden Jews, the moral thing is lying. In many instances Jesus aligns himself with this rabbinic school, as opposed to the tradition from Shammai.
Following that principle, there are further moral insights in the New Testament, that will on many occasions make a compliance with the old law an immoral act.
The law in the OT was given to serve many purposes. They include instructions on how to evaluate witnesses and administer punishment, including capital punishment. About this four sub-points spring to mind:

In comparison to other laws from the same era, e.g. the law of Hammurabi or the Greek law of Draco the laws of the OT are very humane. One is not to cut off limbs of thieves, or go beyond what is a reasonable punishment.
That contrast, IMO, has a value. The tendency is instructive, perhaps even more than the individual examples. In a society such as ours today, we had better follow the intent of the law, than literal words addressed to an early bronze age society. And that's not because I do not believe the words are true. I say that exactly because I believe they are.
Instructions about how to evaluate juridic guilt and punish offenders where not given to individuals, but to the people as a whole. Just as we today may not act as policemen, judges or prison wardens except in an official capacity, so this aspect of OT law never, ever were intended for anything but officially assigned people. And that includes the law "an eye for an eye". It is not about individual revenge. (Nor is it about inflicting physical damage, but that is another topic.)
In the New Testament focus has shifted away from how to organize a priestly state of a chosen people, to how to build communities, made up from all peoples, that reflect the Kingdom of God. That renders all aspects of the OT law, that concerned the treatment of suspected or convicted lawbreakers, void. It has served its purpose and while it was not wrong, it is not any longer applicable. Trying to apply it as if it were, would be contrary to the Gospel, and thus, yes, sinful


Are there Christian churches that believe in isolated living? I am interested in knowing if there are Christian churches or groups that believe in living separately or allow it, either in total isolation and independence or partial isolation to avoid contact with the people of the outside  world, epsecially in view of the soon return of Jesus and the increasing wickedness.

Are there Christian churches that believe in isolated living?

The short answer is yes

First of all, there are the Amish. They more or less live separated from the world.

  A central concept behind much of the Amish lifestyle and practice is the idea of separation from the world. Of course, the Amish would agree that this means to be separate from overtly wicked worldly practices like murder, adultery, fornication, deceit, fraud, idolatry, and a host of other things obviously condemned as sinful in the scripture. To most Amish, however, the idea of separation from the world extends far beyond this. To the Amish, conformity to the seemingly benign cultural norms of fashion, hairstyle, and certain comforts of modern secular life reflect a desire to conform to the world around you and open oneself up to worldly influence. Communication and transportation technologies encourage people to live further and further apart from one another, destroy community, and promote an emphasis on individuality that flows from selfishness and pride. An electrically powered home and all the amenities that come with it give one a sense of self-sufficiency that destroys one's reliance on family, neighbors, and the local church. This also promotes pride and self-interest. In short, the Amish believe that separation from the world does not only mean separation from the explicitly immoral aspects of the unbelieving world but separating oneself, as much as is possible, from the world's whole way of life and living utterly distinctly from them. There is a certain logic to this, but it, in fact, falls into a trap the scriptures warn us against. Ironically, the Apostle Paul points out that such teaching is itself worldly.

    "If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence," (Colossians 2:21).

  Interestingly, the biblical logic is actually that if you have died to the world, the result should be that you do NOT create extra-biblical commands regarding frivolous, material things. The ways of the world do not consist of what they eat, what they wear, or the devices they use. The ways of the world do include, however, the religious impulse to wrap our righteousness up in such things. While the believer can sin in the area of food through gluttony, no specific kinds of food are rejected by the New Testament. Similarly, though the Christian can sin in the area of clothing through immodesty and indecency, no particular style of dress is mandated. A Christian can certainly use technology to separate themselves from God's people, to distract them from God's word, or to access immorality like pornography, but the sin is not in the technology, it is in these particular uses of it.

  This is not to say that we shouldn't take the biblical texts about separation from the world seriously. We absolutely must! But to do so, we have to understand what the Bible considers to be worldly. That is what we need to separate ourselves from. As we have seen, inventing new commands to forbid mundane aspects of material culture is worldly. The mundane aspects of material culture themselves are not innately worldly.

  Come out from among them

    2 Corinthians 6:14-18, "Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, “I will dwell in them and walk among them; And I will be their God, and they shall be My people. “Therefore, come out from their midst and be separate,” says the Lord. “And do not touch what is unclean; And I will welcome you. “And I will be a father to you, And you shall be sons and daughters to Me,” Says the Lord Almighty."

  This is unquestionably a call for Christians to be a distinct and separate people from the world, and this is a passage that Christian churches and individuals need to take very seriously. The call, however, is not to dress differently from unbelievers or to cook over a different heating source or ride a different kind of vehicle. The call is to be holy. Paul spells this out himself in the very next verse:

    2 Corinthians 7:1, "Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God." - The Amish and separation from the world

The Catholic Church permits her faithful to live separated from the world. They are generally known as monks and nuns. However, instead of living this life in view of the soon return of Jesus and the increasing wickedness; they live this way of life in order to be able to be dedicated to a life of prayer.

  Some form of cloister is present in all types of religious life, even the convents of sisters who engage in active apostolates. In such communities, one area of the convent is "cloistered," reserved for the sisters alone. This type of cloister is called common cloister.

  In the contemplative life, the concept of a cloister, a place reserved for the nuns alone, is expanded and deepened. Often the entire monastery is cloistered, and may even be surrounded by a cloister wall. The choir where the nuns sit in the chapel is sometimes hidden from the public who come to pray. And, depending on what form of cloister each monastery professes, the nuns may practice enclosure, which means they vow never to pass beyond the bounds of the cloister. There are three different types of cloister recognized by the Church: papal cloister, constitutional cloister, and monastic cloister, which are explained below.

  Papal Cloister

  Papal cloister is the strictest form of enclosure, in which a nun does not leave the boundaries of the monastery except for serious reasons. The norms defining papal enclosure are given by Rome. The most recent instruction on papal cloister is the 2018 document Cor Orans, which implements what Pope Francis outlined in his 2016 Apostolic Constitution Vultum Dei Quaerere. Cor Orans states: "The law of papal cloister extends to the dwelling and to all the interior and exterior spaces of the monastery reserved exclusively for the nuns in which the presence of strangers can be admitted only in case of necessity. It must be a space of silence and recollection, facilitated by the absence of external works, where the permanent search for the face of God can develop more easily, according to the Institute's charism."

  Some of the orders which traditionally practice papal cloister are: Carmelite Nuns, Poor Clares, Dominican Nuns, Visitandines, Holy Spirit Adoration Sisters, and Handmaids of the Precious Blood.

  Constitutional Cloister

  Constitutional cloister is a form of cloister defined by the norms in the Rule and Constitutions of the individual order. It is generally less strict than papal cloister. This type of cloister is practiced if the community's charism joins to their life of contemplation some kind of apostolic or charitable work. They are still cloistered nuns, but they may have an apostolate attached to the monastery--such as a retreat house--which would be impossible to carry out if they practiced papal enclosure. Cor Orans says of constitutional cloister: "It must be a space of silence and recollection, where the permanent search for the face of God can develop, according to the charism of the Institute, in consideration of the works of apostolate or charity exercised by the nuns" (n. 205).

  Some of the religious orders which traditionally practice constitutional enclosure are: Passionist Nuns, Sisters Adorers of the Precious Blood, and Norbertine Canonesses.

  Monastic Cloister

  Monastic Cloister is "a special expression of the constitutional cloister" (Cor Orans n. 211), one of the most ancient forms of contemplative life. Monastic cloister refers to forms of contemplative life which have always had a charism of hospitality, such as those stemming from the Benedictine tradition. This means guests may be invited to stay at the monastery, and the nuns interact with them much more freely than nuns who practice papal cloister. "For monasteries of contemplative nuns, the monastic cloister, while retaining the character of a more rigorous discipline than the common one, makes it possible to associate the primary function of divine worship with wider forms of reception and hospitality" (Cor Orans n. 210).

  Some of the religious orders who traditionally profess monastic cloister are: Benedictine Nuns, Cistercian/Trappistine Nuns, Sisters of Mary Morning Star. - What is a Cloistered Nun?

Notwithstanding these two example of Christians living separated from the world for whatever reasons they have, history shows us that at least one Christian cult (group) lived separated from the world preparing for the Second Coming. They were the Branch Davidians.

  The Branch Davidians are a religious cult founded in 1959 by Ben Roden as an offshoot of the Davidian Seventh-Day Adventist Church, which had been established by Victor Houteff in the 1930s. Houteff was a Bulgarian emigrant to the United States and Seventh-day Adventist who wrote a set of tracts entitled "Shepherd’s Rod" calling for the reform of the Seventh-day Adventist church. His ideas were rejected by Adventist leaders, and in 1935, Houteff and his followers settled near Waco and began preparing for the Second Coming. Houteff's group eventually moved to a farm near Waco, Texas, but by 1962 Roden and his followers had taken possession of the settlement, which was known as Mt. Carmel.

  The Branch Davidians are most associated with the Waco siege of 1993, a 51-day standoff between Branch Davidians and federal agents that ended when the group's compound near Waco, Texas, was destroyed in a fire. Nearly 80 people were killed.

  The doctrinal beliefs of the Branch Davidians differ on teachings such as the Holy Spirit and his nature, and the feast days and their requirements. Both groups have disputed the relevance of the other's spiritual authority based on the proceedings following Victor Houteff's death. From its inception in 1930, the Davidians/Shepherd's Rod group believed themselves to be living in a time when Biblical prophecies of a Last Judgment were coming to pass as a prelude to Christ's Second Coming.

  In the late 1980s, Koresh and his followers abandoned many Branch Davidian teachings. Koresh became the group's self-proclaimed final prophet. "Koreshians" were the majority resulting from the schism among the Branch Davidians, but some of the Branch Davidians did not join Koresh's group and instead gathered around George Roden or became independent. Following a series of violent shootouts between Roden's and Koresh's group, the Mount Carmel compound was eventually taken over by the "Koreshians". In 1993, the ATF and Texas Army National Guard raided one of the properties belonging to a new religious movement centered around David Koresh that evolved from the Branch Davidians for suspected weapons violations. It is unknown who shot first, but the ATF surrounded and tried to invade the home of the Branch Davidians. This raid resulted in a two-hour firefight in which four ATF agents were killed; this was followed by a standoff with government agents that lasted for 51 days. The siege ended in a fire that engulfed the Mount Carmel compound which led to the deaths of 76 Branch Davidians inside. - Branch Davidians

Who knows, perhaps others may arise in the near future!


Does Christianity approve wars for faith? Does Christianity approve wars to protect or spread the faith or to defeat the enemies of the Christ?

If so, what are the conditions where faith-wars are endorsed?

Pretty much, No.
In general, most Christians reject any idea of coercion in regards to "spreading the faith." Orthodoxy (from Orthos meaning right, and doxa meaning belief) is typically considered more important.
No less a luminary than Martin Luther, in commenting on Romans 12:1, for example, wrote:

“Paul does not say: I command you; for he is preaching to such as are already Christians and godly by faith, in newness of life. These must not be coerced by means of commandments, but admonished to do willingly what has to be done with the old sinful man in them. For any person who does not do this willingly, simply in answer to kind admonitions, is not a Christian; and any person who wants to achieve this result by force applied to such as are unwilling is not a Christian preacher or ruler, but a worldly jailer. A preacher of the Law comes down on men with threats and punishments; a preacher of divine grace coaxes and urges men by reminding them of the goodness and mercy which God has shown them. For He would have no unwilling workers nor heedless service; He wants men to be glad and cheerful in the service of God. Any person who will not permit himself to be coaxed and urged with sweet and pleasant words, which remind him of the mercy of God abundantly bestowed upon him in Christ, to do good joyfully and lovingly to the honor of God and for the benefit of his fellow men, is worthless, and all that is done for him is labor lost. If he is not melted and dissolved in the fire of heavenly love and grace, how can he be softened and made cheerful by laws and threats? It is not a man’s mercy, but the mercy of God that is bestowed on us; and this mercy Paul wants us to consider in order that we may be incited and moved by it to serve God.”

Historically, Just War Theory as promulgated by the famous fifth century theologian Augustine, said that a war should only be fought when protecting others from egregious harm - an extension of God's protection for the widow and orphan, as well an extension of the Golden Rule.
A good summary of jus ad bellum, meaning just causes for war are as follows:

Just Cause: War is permissible only to confront “a real and certain danger,” i.e. to protect innocent life, to preserve conditions necessary for decent human life existence, and to basic human rights.
Competent Authority: The right to use force must be joined with the common good; war must be declared by those with responsibility for public order, not by private groups or individuals.
Right Intention: War can be legitimately intended for only the reasons set forth as a just cause.
Last Resort: For war to be justified, all peaceful alternatives must have been exhausted.
Proportionality: The destruction to be inflicted and the costs incurred by war must be proportionate to the good expected by taking up arms. Destruction applies in both the temporal and spiritual sense.

Those incidents in which the faith was either "protected" or "extended" by coercion (say, the Inquisition, incidents during colonialization) are typically considered to be negative things by modern Christians today. Even the most right-wing and fundamentalist types like Bob Jones and Jerry Falwell never advocated for a return to these methods. Even Fred Phelps uses "Crusades" as a perjorative! Typically, the most common example of a "faith war" would be the Crusades, and to be sure, religion did play a part in those wars.  Grant you,

(a) that was nearly a thousand years ago and
(b) the Fourth Crusade in particular, in which Christian forces from Italy sacked the Christian capital of Byzantium (1204), shows that there was a lot more involved than just religion,

but it is usually the argument.  Most other "Christian" conflicts, like the Thirty Years War, fall into the same category - they were political conflicts as much as religious ones.


How do Roman Catholics understand salvation in light of Romans 3&4? As far as I can understand it, Paul directly contradicts the Roman Catholic doctrine of salvation in Romans 3 & 4 (see verses 3:21-22, 3:28, 4:4-6 in particular, but I'm referring to the broad argument of the whole section).

How do Roman Catholics interpret what Paul is saying here?

For clarification, I understand that Catholic doctrine is nothing if not nuanced, and it's not accurate to just dismiss it as "works salvation". Salvation on that view is "by grace alone", but (as far as I understand) not "by faith alone" - rather, God gives us grace to perform the meritorious works that earn our salvation. It's the "faith alone" part that I think Paul is hammering home here.

Essentially it boils down to that we are saved by grace alone, but that salvation results in such a change of heart that good works must result.
From the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Salvation (all emphasis mine):

27.The Catholic understanding also sees faith as fundamental in justification. For without faith, no justification can take place. Persons are justified through baptism as hearers of the word and believers in it. The justification of sinners is forgiveness of sins and being made righteous by justifying grace, which makes us children of God. In justification the righteous receive from Christ faith, hope, and love and are thereby taken into communion with him. This new personal relation to God is grounded totally on God's graciousness and remains constantly dependent on the salvific and creative working of this gracious God, who remains true to himself, so that one can rely upon him. Thus justifying grace never becomes a human possession to which one could appeal over against God. While Catholic teaching emphasizes the renewal of life by justifying grace, this renewal in faith, hope, and love is always dependent on God's unfathomable grace and contributes nothing to justification about which one could boast before God (Rom 3:27).

and later in the same document:

37.We confess together that good works - a Christian life lived in faith, hope and love - follow justification and are its fruits. When the justified live in Christ and act in the grace they receive, they bring forth, in biblical terms, good fruit. Since Christians struggle against sin their entire lives, this consequence of justification is also for them an obligation they must fulfill. Thus both Jesus and the apostolic Scriptures admonish Christians to bring forth the works of love.
38.According to Catholic understanding, good works, made possible by grace and the working of the Holy Spirit, contribute to growth in grace, so that the righteousness that comes from God is preserved and communion with Christ is deepened. When Catholics affirm the "meritorious" character of good works, they wish to say that, according to the biblical witness, a reward in heaven is promised to these works. Their intention is to emphasize the responsibility of persons for their actions, not to contest the character of those works as gifts, or far less to deny that justification always remains the unmerited gift of grace.


Why is a distressing spirit said to be from God? 1 Samuel 16 reads:

  14 But the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and a distressing
  spirit from the Lord troubled him. 15 And Saul’s servants said to him,
  “Surely, a distressing spirit from God is troubling you. 16 Let our
  master now command your servants, who are before you, to seek out a
  man who is a skillful player on the harp. And it shall be that he will
  play it with his hand when the distressing spirit from God is upon
  you, and you shall be well.”

and:

  23 And so it was, whenever the spirit from God was upon Saul, that
  David would take a harp and play it with his hand. Then Saul would
  become refreshed and well, and the distressing spirit would depart
  from him.

Why is the distressing spirit said to be from God, as God is good?

EDIT: This C.SE question addresses the question "How can a Wholly Good God Deliberately Create Evil?" In this question I am looking for the reason why the distressing spirit is addressed to God, and not, for example, to satan.

God is Completely Sovereign

All events can be credited to him in the sense that nothing happens without him at least allowing it, even if he is not exactly the agent of delivery. This is not necessarily to say that what happens is his highest preference (e.g. he would have preferred that Adam and Eve not sin), but it conforms to his (permissive) will. He is willing to permit us to sin and hurt other people, even though he could prevent it.

Job assigns responsibility to God for all his adversity. When God rebukes Job, he doesn't correct him for such thinking. He only says, "Who are you to question me?" Later, he says that Job has spoken of him correctly (Job 42:7, compared to his three friends, at least). Even though we know that Satan is the malevolent agent who wanted to destroy Job, he was completely bound by what God would permit.

It is as true to assign responsibility to Satan for performing the action as it is to assign culpability to God for allowing it, for God could certainly prevent/stop it if he wanted to. God is in no way powerless to have his way.


What are the objections to Newton's critique of 1 John 5:7 and 1 Timothy 3:16? In "An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture", Isaac Newton argued that 1 John 5:7 was a corruption of the early church and did not appear in the original Greek scriptures. He makes a similar claim regarding 1 Timothy 3:16. 1 John 5:7 is the strongest biblical reference to the trinity. Is there an objection to Newton's historical analysis of these verses?

1 John 5:7 -- For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
1 Timothy 3:16 -- And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

1 John 5:7, 8

The evidence for and against this "comma" is a follows.  The manuscripts are identified, as usual, by their catalogue number according to the Gregory-Aland system with a date in brackets.  See the list in UBS5 and NA28.  See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript

01 (4th) omit

03 (4th) omit

02 (5th) omit

048 (5th) omit

024 (6th) omit

044 (800) omit

018 (9th) omit

020 (9th) omit

33 (9th) omit

2464 (9th) omit

1739 (10th) omit

81 (1044) omit

2138 (1072) omit

323 (11th) omit

436 (11th) omit

945 (11th) omit

1175 (11th) omit

1243 (11th) omit

1846 (11th) omit

2298 (11th) omit

2344 (11th) omit

1241 (12th) omit

1505 (12th) omit

1611 (12th) omit

1735 (1200) omit

1852 (13th) omit

1292 (13th) omit

1067 (14th) omit

1409 (14th) omit

1881 (14th) omit

322 (15th) omit

Late (post 15th cent) MSS (undated)

61  include

88  include

221  include

429  include

629  include

636  include

918  include

2318  include

It is NOT included in Wescott & Hort, NA28, UBS5, SBL, Majority Text, Byzantine Text, F35, Jerome's Vulgate (~400 AD), THGNT, NIVGNT.

It is included on the Orthodox text (by edict), TR and Clementine Vulgate.  It is clearly a late addition from the vulgate.

1 Tim 3:16

The difference in this verse is "theos" (= God in TR and majority Byzantine text) vs "hos" (= he or who in NA28, UBS5 etc).  In any case the sense of the verse is scarcely changed.

The problem with Newton's critique is his dependence on a straw-man argument.  Because two texts supporting the Trinitarian view are dubious, then is Trinitarianism dubious?  Hardly.  There are numerous other arguments in favour of Trinitarianism in the NT.


Are Catholics permitted to honour Mary as a priest? Mary, the Mother of Jesus was present at the foot of the Cross as her Son was dying in order to ransom mankind from sin.

This got me thinking that Mary must hold a special place in Catholic devotion. As Catholic priests offer the sacrifice of Our Lord on the altar, could not Mary have offered her Son on the altar of the Cross for our salvation?

I have been able to find a few pieces of religious art that shows the Virgin Mary dressed in priestly attire and I have included one here:

My question is quite simple: Does the Catholic Church allow us to honor Mary under the title of the Virgin Priest and if so what are the directives on it from Rome?

St. Alphonsus di Liguori used to pray: "Nos cum prole pia benedicat Virgo Maria." (May the Virgin Mary bless us with her pious offspring [Jesus].) Thus it seems she has the ability to bless, yet this isn't necessarily reserved to ordained priests in all circumstances.

She is a "priest" (or sacerdote, "a giver of the sacred"), but she was not ordained a priest, as she was not present at the Last Supper when Jesus instituted the sacrament of Orders by washing the feet of His disciples. Nor could she be an ordained priest; only men can be ordained priests.

Although all Christians are a "kingly priesthood" (1 Peter 2:9), not all Christians are Ordained priests.

One of the greatest mariologists and Doctor of the Church, St. Albert the Great, wrote (Mariale 42 & 165):

  The Blessed Virgin was not called by God to be a minister, but a consort and a helper, in accordance with the words "Let us make him a help like unto himself."

Quoted in Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.'s Mother of The Savior and Our Interior Life (p. 42).


Are there any churches that do not accept the teachings of Paul? From different discussions (including some on this site) it seems that Paul's teachings were different from the teachings of Jesus and the other apostles in some aspects. In light of this are there any churches that do not accept the teachings of Paul? If there are no such churches today, were there any in the past?

I am asking regarding the teachings of Paul. This has nothing to do about the person Paul. And again, I am just asking for information, not any type of argument for/against Paul.

There are several levels of "rejection" here.

First, if you mean outright removal from the canon, as in The Jefferson Bible, no large denominational body has done so that I am aware of.

Secondly, since Paul wrote half the New Testament, he is the source of many of our doctrinal writings about items from the nature of salvation to sexual ethics. On matters of salvation, for example, there are those who argue for a distinction between the "original" religion of Christianity and that which came about after Paul ruined it. The former being a nice religion about peace & justice, the latter being an exclusivist religion about avoiding hell in the afterlife.  An example is the "Christianity Before Paul"  views of James Tabor.  I don't know of any denomination who has fully embraced this view, although there surely are large numbers of pastors who would do so.

As far as sexual ethics go, Paul's writing in Romans 1 has been cited as the most authoritative biblical passage condemning (modern) homosexual practice.  Thus, much of the discussion in modern denominations has revolved around the applicability, authority, or even sinfulness of Paul's writings on the topic. One such place such debate over Paul's writings could be seen was in the debates that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America had over allowing non-celibate homosexual persons to serve as pastors leading up to a 2009 vote at its churchwide assembly.  Neverthelss, I have seen that even among those who explicitly reject Paul's view on sexuality, nearly all still find his writings on other topics, such as communion, to be authoritative.

Examples of rejecting Paul's writings in the ELCA's sexuality debate:
1) Presiding Bishop Hanson was quoted as saying that "we won't let six verses" determine our policy on anything.
2) One of the policy documents from the ELCA charged that "Paul's pre-suppositions are irrelevant."
3) At the plenary debate during the 2009 Churchwide Assembly, one speaker got up and told a story of one of his professors in seminary.  It went like this:

  "The professor took a large bible and threw it as hard as he could against the wall. Its bindings broke and pages went everywhere.  The professor said, 'This is how I feel about the bible."  Then the professor lovingly picked up the pieces, cradled them in his arms like a baby, and said, 'This is how I feel about the Word of God.'"

Making a big deal about the distinction between "the Word of God" and bible passages you want to throw against the wall is one way of downplaying the writings of Paul (Romans 1).


What is the justification for relying on faith healing and conventional medicine? As a contrast to What is the justification for relying on faith healing over conventional medicine?, I thought I'd ask the opposite. What is the justification for relying on faith and conventional medicine in conjunction with one another?

In Like a Broken Vessel, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland is speaking to members of the LDS Church about mental illness, but I think his reasoning is more generally applicable.

  If you had appendicitis, God would expect you to seek a priesthood
  blessing and get the best medical care available. ...
  Our Father in Heaven expects us to use all of the
  marvelous gifts He has provided in this glorious dispensation.

So Elder Holland is making the argument that since God has provided us with both faith (and in the case of latter-day saints, blessings of healing) and with medical care, we should use both.

President Dallin H. Oaks goes into more detail in Healing the Sick

  The use of medical science is not at odds with our prayers of faith
  and our reliance on priesthood blessings. When a person requested a
  priesthood blessing, Brigham Young would ask, “Have you used any
  remedies?” To those who said no because “we wish the Elders to lay
  hands upon us, and we have faith that we shall be healed,” President
  Young replied: “That is very inconsistent according to my faith. If we
  are sick, and ask the Lord to heal us, and to do all for us that is
  necessary to be done, according to my understanding of the Gospel of
  salvation, I might as well ask the Lord to cause my wheat and corn to
  grow, without my plowing the ground and casting in the seed. It
  appears consistent to me to apply every remedy that comes within the
  range of my knowledge, and [then] to ask my Father in Heaven … to
  sanctify that application to the healing of my body.”

  Of course we don’t wait until all other methods are exhausted before
  we pray in faith or give priesthood blessings for healing. In
  emergencies, prayers and blessings come first. Most often we pursue
  all efforts simultaneously. This follows the scriptural teachings that
  we should “pray always” (D&C 90:24) and that all things should be done
  in wisdom and order.

President Oaks is making it clear that seeking medical attention (if possible) is a sign of faith, and therefore a prerequisite for a miracle to occur. This is especially important in our day, where many of us have access to excellent medical care. That being said, even in biblical times they did the best they could. Ancient Israel encouraged a healthy diet. In 1 Corinthians 3:16-17, it states that we are the temple of God, which most not be defiled.

I think that many Christians who rely on faith and conventional medicine would agree for broadly similar reasons.


What is going on in Matthew 21 and Mark 12? In Matthew 21:33-46 and Mark 12:1-12, Jesus tells pretty much the exact same parable:

  Husbandman leases his vineyard and leaves. He sends some servants to check it out, and they get whooped. He sends his son, the caretakers kill him. The moral - don't mess with the Son.

But the question-response conversation afterward with the pharisees is a touch different in both.

In Matthew 21:40-42 Jesus asks:

  "Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vinedressers?" They said to Him, "He will destroy those wicked men miserably, and lease his vineyard to other vinedressers who will render to him the fruits in their seasons." Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures: 'The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone. This was the LORD's doing, And it is marvelous in our eyes'?

In Mark 12-8-11:

  What shall therefore the lord of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others. And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner: This was the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes?

The Jesus answers his own question in Mark, and in Matthew, Jesus seems to be responding negatively to the Pharisees' answer. But they were right, right?  What am I missing here?

The answer to the question is obvious; asking it is rhetorical: of course the owner will seek retribution for the wrong done to him and his son by those he trusted.

The purpose of the story - regardless of who fills in this answer - is made clear by the quote from Psalms that follows, and so it is explained (Matt, Mark) that his audience sees immediately that he was comparing them to the caretakers. By asking the question before driving the point home, He allowed them to condemn themselves.

Note that in Matthew, this was the second of two back-to-back parables in which He chides them for failing to do the job His father had entrusted them with, both employing the same tactic of asking a question intended to draw the condemnation from the lips of those being condemned by the comparison.